Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Food and Nutrition Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
United States Mint
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.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
This rule removes the Coordinated Services Plan (CSP) requirement for the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (Summer EBT) Program under the “Implementing Provisions from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023: Establishing the Summer EBT Program and Rural Non-Congregate Option in the Summer Meal Programs” interim final rule published December 29, 2023.
The final rule is effective August 5, 2025.
James C. Miller, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, at (703) 305-2060, or
On December 29, 2023, FNS published the interim final rule
As part of that rulemaking, FNS requires that each State which operates the SFSP and Summer EBT to develop and maintain a CSP to coordinate the statewide availability of services offered through these Programs. Beginning in 2025, states must submit a single CSP to FNS that describes how SFSP and Summer EBT services will be coordinated statewide. In instances where more than one agency administers these programs within a state, those agencies must collaborate to develop and implement the CSP. The CSP must be updated at least every three years, with significant annual updates submitted as needed. At a minimum, the plan must include: a description of the roles and responsibilities of each administering agency; a description of how agencies and organizations will coordinate outreach and programmatic activities to maximize the reach of summer meal programs and Summer EBT; metrics to assess program reach and coverage; and plans to partner with other federal, state, tribal, or local programs to support participant access to all benefits for which they may be eligible. Additionally, states must also ensure the CSP is made publicly available by posting it on their website and must notify the public of the CSP.
Comments on the Summer IFR were accepted through August 27, 2024. Eleven respondents provided general comments on the CSP requirements. An advocacy group expressed support for USDA's commitment to ensuring that all summer programs work together to end summer childhood hunger through the creation of the CSP. However, most commenters noted that the CSP is burdensome, unnecessary, and duplicative of other reporting requirements. Specifically, commenters remarked that the requirement to submit a CSP is duplicative of what States already submit in their management and administration plans. A State agency commented that Summer EBT and SFSP are not equivalent, reasoning that “the coordination of a plan” is unnecessary and burdensome. Similarly, another State agency expressed general concern about how the CSP will include both SFSP and Summer EBT. Commenters also had differing opinions on each agency's roles. One State agency recommended that FNS remove the CSP requirement altogether.
Following publication of the Summer IFR, FNS offered a waiver under the authority of section 12(l) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA), 42 U.S.C. 1760(l), to defer the compliance date for initial CSP submissions to January 1, 2025; accordingly, 38 out of the 41 States required to comply with this provision requested and received said waiver for Program year 2025. Requesting State agencies cited a need to focus their resources on implementation and rollout activities that will best support program capacity and integrity in order to support access to nutritious meals and Summer EBT benefits. In addition to the input FNS has received through public comments and waivers, States have continued to provide similar feedback to FNS during webinars, conferences, and other engagements since publication of the Summer IFR.
FNS has carefully reviewed the public's input and SFSP and Summer EBT regulations at 7 CFR 225.3(e) and 292.10, respectively, and determined that this deregulatory action is necessary, justified, and will benefit the public. As such, FNS will remove the CSP requirement for the SFSP and Summer EBT under this final rule.
In development of this final rule, FNS considered alternatives in the SFSP and Summer EBT including retaining the provision as is, providing regulatory waivers, extending the timeline for the States to submit updates to FNS, and removing the requirement that the State agency must consult with FNS on the development of, and any significant subsequent updates to, their plan. However, FNS agrees with commenters that the CSP is burdensome, unnecessary, and duplicative of other reporting requirements, and thus has determined the provision should be removed entirely. FNS expects removal of this provision will provide immediate relief for State administering agencies by decreasing administrative burden and eliminating duplicative and unnecessary paperwork in the SFSP and Summer EBT. This action also has the potential to provide relief for any
Furthermore, on January 21, 2025, President Trump signed the Executive Order 14192 on Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (E.O. 14192), supporting the American economy and citizens by ordering the executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources, and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. This final rule is in response to, and fully consistent with, the directives of E.O. 14192. Accordingly, this final rule removes the CSP requirements at 7 CFR 225.3(e) and 292.10.
Under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563, agencies must assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this regulatory action is not significant and, therefore, is not subject to OMB review.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601
This rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)) for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. As this rule is purely deregulatory, FNS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have Tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements; rather, it would reduce future collection requirements by removing reporting burdens. Specifically, the changes in this rule will remove the reporting requirement for State/local/Tribal governments to establish, and update annually as needed, a coordinated services plan to coordinate the statewide availability of services offered through the Summer Food Service Program described in 7 CFR part 225 and the Summer EBT program established in 7 CFR part 292. In the Summer IFR, USDA estimated that the 157 State agencies will be required to submit a coordinated services plan annually and that it takes a total of approximately 838 hours to complete this reporting requirement. USDA will revise its information collections to reflect this burden reduction.
The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 2002 to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
The rule is deregulatory and has little effect on States and local governments, so FNS anticipates that this rule will not have implications for federalism. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive order, a federalism summary is not required.
Food assistance programs, Grant programs—health, Infants and children, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Food assistance programs, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—health, Infants and children, Nutrition, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School breakfast and lunch programs.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 225 and 292 are amended as follows:
Secs. 9, 13 and 14, Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761 and 1762a).
42 U.S.C. 1762.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Interim final rule.
This rule rescinds an unnecessary reporting requirement for the school meals application verification process.
Comments can be submitted through the Federal e-rulemaking portal at
Please be advised that the identity of individuals or entities submitting comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above. Parties who wish to comment anonymously may do so by entering“N/A” in the fields that would identify the commenter. A plain language summary of this notice of interim final rule is available at
James C. Miller, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, at (703) 305-2060, or
In school year 2023-2024, school districts approved 1.52 million applications for free or reduced-price school meals. Each year, school districts must verify a sample of those applications for certification error,
Additionally, current regulations (7 CFR 245.12(i)). require State education agencies to report to FNS any ameliorative actions that they have taken or intend to take in local educational agencies with high levels of applications changed due to verification.
Review and verification of school meals applications is an important oversight and corrective action process required under Federal law, and consistent with Agriculture Secretary Rollins's priorities to protect both program participants and taxpayers, and to minimize the risk of program abuse. USDA has not made changes to the annual requirement to conduct verification or report verification outcomes to USDA. Nor does USDA change the requirement that states analyze annual verification outcomes to identify any potential problems and the appropriate corrective action. USDA is eliminating only the annual reporting of corrective actions taken or proposed in response to this analysis.
The ameliorative action reporting requirement included in paragraph 245.12(i) is an unnecessary burden on program operators. Consistent with Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation,” FNS rescinds the reporting requirement for ameliorative action. To the extent there is any uncertainty about the costs and benefits of the 7 CFR 245.12(i) regulations, it is the policy of USDA to err on the side of deregulation. USDA's limited resources should be focused on fairly and rationally enforcing a discrete and manageable number of regulations.
Under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563, agencies must assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this regulatory action is not significant and, therefore, is not subject to OMB review.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601
This rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)) for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. As this rule is purely deregulatory, FNS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have Tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements; rather, it would reduce future collection requirements by removing reporting burdens. Specifically, the changes in this rule will remove the ameliorative action reporting part of the requirement currently under OMB Control Number 0584-0594 to report on the results of verification reviews. That collection shows 40 hours of total burden for 57 respondents. This interim final rule will reduce burden by a portion of that amount. USDA will revise this collection to reflect this burden reduction as part of its next renewal of 0584-0594.
The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 2002 to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
The rule is deregulatory and has little effect on States and local governments, so FNS anticipates that this rule will not have implications for federalism. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive order, a federalism summary is not required.
Civil rights, Food assistance programs, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—health, Infants and children, Milk, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School breakfast and lunch programs.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 245 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1752, 1758, 1759a, 1772, 1773, and 1779.
(i) No later than February 1, 2013, and by February 1st each year thereafter, each State agency must collect annual verification data from each local educational agency as described in § 245.6a(h). Each State agency must analyze these data, determine if there are potential problems, and formulate corrective actions and technical assistance activities that will support the objective of certifying only those children eligible for free or reduced price meals. No later than March 15, 2013, and by March 15th each year thereafter, each State agency must report to FNS, in a consolidated electronic file by local educational agency, the verification information that has been reported to it as required under § 245.6a(h). State agencies are encouraged to collect and report any or all verification data elements before the required dates.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-19-11 for all Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 and R44 II helicopters. AD 2024-19-11 required visually inspecting a certain flex plate assembly (flex plate) and certain clutch shaft forward yokes (yokes), including each flex plate bolt, and depending on the results, taking corrective actions. AD 2024-19-11 also required removing certain yokes from service within a specified threshold, or as an alternative, performing in-depth inspections. Since the FAA issued AD 2024-19-11, it has been determined that clarifications regarding the alternative inspections are necessary. This AD requires the actions of AD 2024-19-11 and clarifies that the alternative inspections are repetitive and adds a particular paint remover option to use when performing those alternative inspections. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 11, 2025.
Eric Moreland, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: (562) 627-5364; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2024-19-11, Amendment 39-22853 (89 FR 78785, September 26, 2024) (AD 2024-19-11). AD 2024-19-11 applied to all Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 and R44 II helicopters. The NPRM published in the
The FAA received comments from three commenters. Commenters included two individual commenters and Robinson Helicopter Company. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
One individual commenter supported the NPRM without change.
One individual commenter requested the FAA revise the required paint stripper from Bonderite S-ST 5251 to Bonderite S-ST 5351.
The FAA agrees and has revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.
Robinson Helicopter Company stated a yoke that has undergone a magnetic particle inspection per paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(B) [of the proposed AD], should be allowed to be installed, per the proposed AD and that clarification would be helpful to state that “first installation” also refers to the first installation after completion of a magnetic particle inspection. Robinson Helicopter Company requested the FAA revise the wording in Table 1 of the proposed AD to include the wording “first installation after a magnetic particle inspection.”
The FAA agrees. The FAA has determined that adding the wording “after a magnetic particle inspection” would help clarify that the compliance time also applies to a yoke being installed after a magnetic particle inspection. The FAA has revised Table 1 of this final rule.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the 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 estimates that this AD affects 1,725 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.
Visually inspecting a flex plate would take 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $36,225 for the U.S. fleet. If required, replacing a flex plate would take 1 work-hour and parts would cost $1,240 for an estimated cost of $1,325 per helicopter.
Visually inspecting a yoke, including inspecting each flex plate bolt, takes 1.25 work-hours for an estimated cost of $106 per helicopter and $182,850 for the U.S. fleet.
Replacing a yoke takes 6 work-hours and parts will cost $890 for an estimated cost of $1,400 per helicopter and $2,415,000 for the U.S. fleet, per replacement cycle.
Alternatively, removing paint and inspecting a yoke using 10X or higher power magnifying glass takes 1.5 work-hours for an estimated cost of $128 per helicopter. If required, performing a magnetic particle inspection takes 1.5 work-hours for an estimated cost of $128 per helicopter.
Applying torque to a set of bolts, nuts, and palnuts takes 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter.
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 under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 11, 2025.
This AD replaces AD 2024-19-11, Amendment 39-22853 (89 FR 78785, September 26, 2024).
This AD applies to Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 and R44 II helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6310, Engine/Transmission coupling.
This AD was prompted by reports of a fractured clutch shaft forward yoke (yoke) on the main rotor (M/R) drive due to fatigue cracking. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect fatigue cracking on the yoke. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of M/R drive and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
(i) Visually inspect forward flex plate assembly part number (P/N) C947-1 (flex plate) for any loose fasteners, cracks, fretting, corrosion, wear, and to ensure that the washers are bonded to both sides of each flex plate arm, in the areas depicted in Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD. If there is any loose fastener (can be moved by hand), crack, fretting, corrosion, or wear that consists of the washers not securely bonded to both sides of each flex plate arm, before further flight, remove the flex plate from service and replace it with an airworthy flex plate.
(ii) Visually inspect yoke P/N C907-1 or C907-2, as applicable, and yoke P/N C908-1, for any cracks, corrosion, and fretting. If there is any crack, corrosion, or fretting, before further flight, remove the yoke from service and replace it with an airworthy yoke, and torque each newly-installed bolt, nut, and palnut P/N B330-19 using the torque value information in Appendix 1 to this AD.
(iii) Visually inspect each flex plate bolt for any missing or unaligned torque stripes, loose fasteners, loose nuts, and to ensure that palnuts are installed. If there is a missing or unaligned torque stripe, loose fastener (can be moved by hand), loose nut (can be turned by hand), or if a palnut is not installed, before further flight, remove the associated yoke from service and replace it with an airworthy yoke, and torque each newly-installed bolt, nut, and palnut P/N B330-19 using the torque value information in Appendix 1 to this AD.
(2) Within the compliance times specified in Table 1 to the introductory text of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, accomplish the actions required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD or, as an alternative to accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, accomplish the actions required by paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD within the same compliance times.
(i) Remove the yoke from service and replace it with an airworthy yoke, and torque each newly-installed bolt, nut, and palnut P/N B330-19 using the torque value information in Appendix 1 to this AD, or
(ii) With yoke P/N C907-1 or C907-2 removed, as applicable, remove the paint from the yoke using Cee-Bee stripper A-292 or Bonderite stripper S-ST 5351 without using a plastic media abrasive paint stripper and accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this AD.
(A) Using 10X or higher power magnifying glass, visually inspect the yoke for any crack, seam, lap, shut, and any flaw that is open to the surface. If there is any crack, seam, lap,
(B) If the yoke is not removed from service as a result of the actions required by paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A) of this AD, perform a magnetic particle inspection for any crack, seam, lap, shut, and any flaw that is open to the surface using a method in accordance with FAA-approved procedures. If there is any crack, seam, lap, shut, or flaw, before further flight, remove the yoke from service and replace it with an airworthy yoke, and torque each newly-installed bolt, nut, and palnut P/N B330-19 using the torque value information in Appendix 1 to this AD.
A one-time flight permit may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to fly to a maintenance area to perform the required actions in this AD, provided there are no passengers onboard.
(1) The Manager, West Certification Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the West Certification Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Moreland, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: (562) 627-5364; email:
(2) For material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference, contact Robinson Helicopter Company, Technical Support Department, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505; phone: (310) 539-0508; fax: (310) 539-5198; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an inspection that found several anodic burns on the main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam axles following a high velocity oxygen-fuel (HVOF) stripping process. This AD requires replacement of affected MLG bogie beam axles and prohibits the installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 11, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 11, 2025.
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; 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 Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacement of affected MLG bogie beam axles and prohibit the installation of affected parts, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0156. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International, who supported the NPRM without change.
The FAA also received comments from ProTech Aero Services Limited, who requested the FAA confirm that the proposed AD would allow the use of later-approved revisions of the material specified in EASA AD 2024-0156, as acceptable for compliance with the AD requirements.
This AD does allow the use of later-approved revisions of the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0156 as acceptable for compliance with the required actions. This AD adopts the “Ref. Publications” section of EASA AD 2024-0156, which includes the current version of the referenced material as well as later approved revisions.
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA 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 this product. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
EASA AD 2024-0156 specifies procedures for replacing the affected MLG bogie beam axle (
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 36 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has not included a cost estimate for the on-condition repair of any bogie beam bushes found with damage during the axle replacement because the extent of damage found could vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way of determining the cost to repair any damage or the number of airplanes that may require repair.
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the parts manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
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 under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 11, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by an inspection that found several anodic burns on the main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam axles following a high velocity oxygen-fuel stripping process. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the anodic burns on the MLG bogie beam axles. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure of the MLG and consequent collapse, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0156, dated August 13, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0156).
(1) Where EASA AD 2024-0156 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2024-0156 defines a serviceable part as “Any MLG bogie beam axle, eligible for installation in accordance with Airbus instructions, that is not an affected part”, for this AD replace that text with “Any MLG bogie beam axle, eligible for installation, that is not an affected part”.
(3) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2024-0156 specifies a compliance time for the replacement, for this AD, do the replacement within 24,000 flight hours or 5,700 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since first installation of the affected part on an airplane, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(4) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2024-0156 specifies “in accordance with the instructions of the SB”, this AD requires replacing that text with “in accordance with the replacement instructions of the SB”.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0156.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0156, dated August 13, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation, Inc., Model 560 and 560XL airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of mis-wired fire extinguishing bottles. This AD requires an engine fire extinguisher system functional test, an inspection of the fire extinguisher bottle cartridge wire numbers and yellow ID sleeves for proper identification and legibility, and applicable corrective actions. This AD also requires revising the existing inspection program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations for repetitive inspections of the engine fire extinguisher wiring and, as applicable, auxiliary power unit (APU) fire extinguisher wiring. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 11, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 11, 2025.
• For Textron Aviation material identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation, Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316-517-6215; fax 316-517-5802; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Kuri DeLuna, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1801 S Airport Road, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 817-222-5350; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Textron Aviation, Inc., Model 560 and 560XL airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
The FAA received a comment from an individual that did not contain a specific suggestion or request that the FAA can act on.
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, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024; and Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560XL-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024. This material specifies procedures for an engine fire extinguisher system functional test, inspection of the fire extinguisher bottle cartridge wire numbers and yellow ID sleeves for proper identification and legibility and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include installing new yellow ID sleeves and new ring terminals. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,245 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary corrective actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these corrective actions:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
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 under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 11, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to Textron Aviation, Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) airplanes, certificated in any category, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD.
(1) Model 560 airplanes, having serial numbers (S/Ns) 560-0001 through 560-0707 inclusive, and 560-0751 through 560-0815 inclusive.
(2) Model 560XL airplanes, having S/Ns 560-5001 through 560-5372 inclusive, 560-
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26; Fire Protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of mis-wired fire extinguishing bottles. The FAA is issuing this AD to address mis-wired fire extinguishing bottles, which might not activate in the event of an engine or auxiliary power unit (APU) fire. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an unextinguished fire in the engine nacelle or APU.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For all airplanes except for serial numbers 560-6307 through 560-6360 inclusive: Within 100 flight hours or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.
(1) Perform an engine fire extinguisher system functional test in accordance with step 4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024, or Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560XL-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024, as applicable.
(2) Perform an inspection of the fire extinguisher bottle cartridge wire numbers and yellow ID sleeves for proper identification and legibility in accordance with step 6. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024; or Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560XL-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024; as applicable. If the proper identification is not found or any yellow ID sleeve is not legible, within 100 flight hours or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with step 6. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024; or Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560XL-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024; as applicable.
Although Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024; and Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560XL-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024, specify to report inspection findings, this AD does not require any report.
No later than 24 months after accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD, do the revision specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model 560 airplanes, revise the existing inspection program to include the information identified in table 1 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. The initial compliance time for the task is at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD.
(i) Within 100 flight hours or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 24 months after accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) For Model 560XL airplanes, revise the existing inspection program to include the information identified in table 2 to paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. The initial compliance time for the tasks is at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (ii) of this AD.
(i) Within 100 flight hours or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 24 months after accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD.
After the existing inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(1) The Manager, Central Certification 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 (l) 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.
For more information about this AD, contact Kuri DeLuna, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1801 S Airport Road, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 817-222-5350; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024.
(ii) Textron Aviation Citation Service Letter SL560XL-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2024.
(3) For Textron Aviation material identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation, Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316-517-6215; fax 316-517-5802; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. Model 1124 and 1124A airplanes. This AD was prompted by the need to ensure proper thrust reverser system status and function and to minimize the possibility of thrust reverser operation in flight or before landing. This AD requires revising the limitations and normal procedures sections of the existing airplane flight manual (AFM). The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 23, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 23, 2025.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by July 21, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Israel Aircraft Industries material identified in this AD, contact Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., Ben Gurion International Airport 70100, Israel; telephone 972-3-9353090; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Alexis Whitaker, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7309; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Alexis Whitaker, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7309; email:
The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued CAAI AD ISR I-78-2025-03-01, dated March 4, 2025 (referred to as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. Model 1124 and 1124A airplanes. The MCAI states that action is necessary to ensure proper thrust reverser system status and function while airborne and to prohibit deployment before landing. Accordingly, the MCAI requires revising the AFM to incorporate temporary thrust reverser limitations and procedures.
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent deployment of a thrust reverser in flight or before landing. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. 1124-Westwind Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Temporary Revision (TR) No. 8 and Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. 1124A-Westwind AFM TR No. 9, both dated March 13, 2024.
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and material referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires revising the limitations and normal procedures sections of the existing AFM.
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the revised operating limitations and procedures will minimize the possibility of thrust reverser operation in flight or before landing, which if not addressed could result in loss of control of the airplane. Additionally, the actions required by this AD must be accomplished before further flight. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 76 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, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 23, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. Model 1124 and 1124A airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine Exhaust.
This AD was prompted by the need to ensure proper thrust reverser system status and function and to minimize the possibility of thrust reverser operation in flight or before landing. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent deployment of a thrust reverser in flight or before landing. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of the existing AFM to include the information specified in pages I-9, IV-18, IV-21, and IV-25 in Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. 1124-Westwind AFM Temporary Revision (TR) No. 8, dated March 13, 2024, or Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. 1124A-Westwind AFM TR No. 9, dated March 13, 2024, as applicable to your model airplane. Using a different document with information identical to the information in the TR pages is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are prohibited.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Alexis Whitaker, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7309; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. 1124-Westwind Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Temporary Revision (TR) No. 8, dated March 13, 2024.
(ii) Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. 1124A-Westwind AFM TR No. 9, dated March 13, 2024.
(3) For Israel Aircraft Industries material identified in this AD, contact Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., Ben Gurion International Airport 70100, Israel; telephone 972-3-9353090; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that was published in the
This correction is effective July 2, 2025. The effective date of AD 2025-06-13 remains July 2, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 2, 2025 (90 FR 22442, May 28, 2025).
• For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3962; email:
AD 2025-06-13, Amendment 39-23001 (90 FR 22442, May 28, 2025) (AD 2025-06-13), requires replacing the incorrectly manufactured floor beam side-of-body fittings, inspecting the fuselage frame and fastener holes for damage, and repairing any damage for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-9 and 787-10 airplanes. For some repairs, AD 2025-06-13 requires using a method approved in accordance with the FAA's AMOC procedures.
As published, a reference to the AMOC paragraph in the regulatory text of AD 2025-06-13 is incorrect. Paragraph (h)(2) of AD 2025-06-13 inadvertently referred to paragraph (i) of
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530084-00 RB, Issue 002, dated September 5, 2024. This material specifies performing an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer inspection or a high frequency eddy current inspection of the floor beam side-of-body fittings between station 1233 and station 1593 to determine whether the fitting was manufactured with type design grade 5 Ti-6AI-4V material. Alternatively, operators may replace all floor beam side-of-body fittings between station 1233 and station 1593 with fittings made of the correct material without performing an inspection. For any floor beam side-of-body fitting that needs replacement, this material specifies inspecting the fuselage frame and fuselage fastener holes for damage, repairing any damage, and installing a floor beam side-of-body fitting made of the correct material.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This document corrects an error and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, the FAA is publishing the entire rule in the
The effective date of this AD remains July 2, 2025.
Since this action only corrects a reference to the AMOC paragraph, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 2, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-9 and 787-10 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530084-00 RB, Issue 002, dated September 5, 2024.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports that some floor beam side-of-body fittings have been manufactured with an incorrect material type between station 1233 and station 1593. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the floor beam side-of-body fittings that do not meet type design and prevent failure of the fittings. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability of the surrounding principal structure elements to sustain limit loads and damage to critical systems under the floor; these conditions could cause loss of control of the airplane. Additionally, in the event of an emergency landing or full certified rapid decompression, failure of multiple adjacent fittings could result in the inability of the passenger floor grid to maintain the loads and could result in serious injury or impeded egress for passengers.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530084-00 RB, Issue 002, dated September 5, 2024, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530084-00 RB, Issue 002, dated September 5, 2024.
(1) Where the “Boeing Recommended Compliance Time” column in the tables under the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530084-00 RB, Issue 002, dated September 5, 2024, refers to “the Issue 001 date of Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530084-00 RB,” this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530084-00 RB, Issue 002, dated September 5, 2024, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions, this AD requires doing the repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(3) Where footnote [2] in Tasks 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 31, 33, 36, 38, 41, 43, 46, 48, 51, 53, and 56 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530084-00 RB, Issue 002, dated September 5, 2024, uses the phrase “Chamfer edges of fastener holes common to the SOB fitting,” for this AD, replace that phrase with “Chamfer edges of fastener holes common to the fuselage frame, once installed.”
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530084-00 RB, Issue 001, dated December 8, 2023.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) 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
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3962; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following material was approved for IBR on July 2, 2025 (90 FR 22442, May 28, 2025).
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530084-00 RB, Issue 002, dated September 5, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) For service information, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(5) 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.
(6) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2, AS350B3, and EC130B4 helicopters. This AD was prompted by reports of broken cargo swing frames and the determination to change an existing repetitive inspection threshold. This AD requires repetitively inspecting the cargo swing installation and frame and, depending on the results, performing corrective action, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 11, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 11, 2025.
• For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Steven Warwick, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-5225; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2, AS350B3, and EC130B4 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitively inspecting the cargo swing installation and frame and, depending on the results, performing corrective action, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0107. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA 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, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0107, which specifies procedures for a one-time inspection of the cargo swing
The material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0107 specifies that certain procedures may be done by a pilot with correct training and accreditation, whereas this AD requires those actions be accomplished by persons authorized under 14 CFR 43.3. EASA AD 2023-0107 defines the acronym “SC” as swing cycles, whereas this AD and the alert service bulletin (ASB) referenced in EASA AD 2023-0107 define SC as sling cycles. EASA AD 2023-0107 requires a one-time inspection, whereas this AD requires repetitive inspections to require the updated threshold on an on-going basis. Depending on the inspection results, EASA AD 2023-0107 specifies contacting AH [Airbus Helicopters] to obtain approved corrective action instructions and accomplishing those instructions, whereas this AD requires replacing the cargo swing frame.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,184 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.
Visually inspecting the cargo swing installation and frame takes 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $201,280 for the U.S. fleet. If required, dye penetrant inspecting the cargo swing installation and frame takes 6 work-hours for an estimated cost of $510 per helicopter. Replacing the cargo swing frame takes 4 work-hours and the part costs $25,507, for an estimated cost of $25,847 per helicopter.
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 under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 11, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2, AS350B3, and EC130B4 helicopters, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2023-0107, dated May 26, 2023; corrected June 2, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0107).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2500, Cabin Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of broken cargo swing frames and the determination to change an existing repetitive inspection threshold. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of a cargo swing frame. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of a cargo swing frame, in-flight loss of load, and consequent damage to and reduced control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2023-0107.
(1) Where EASA AD 2023-0107 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2023-0107 defines SC as “swing cycles,” this AD requires replacing that text with “sling cycles.”
(3) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0107 specifies that certain procedures may be done by a pilot with correct training and accreditation, this AD requires that those actions be accomplished by persons authorized under 14 CFR 43.3.
(4) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2023-0107 states “within the compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable,” this AD requires replacing that text with “within the compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months and 36 days or 550 SC, whichever occurs first.”
(5) Where the AMM task, as defined in EASA AD 2023-0107, specifies dye penetrant inspecting the cargo swing installation and frame if in doubt if there is a crack, this AD requires dye penetrant inspecting the cargo swing installation and frame if, as a result of the visual inspection, there is a line having no visible gap or misalignment to determine if the line is a scratch or a crack.
(6) Instead of complying with paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0107, comply with the following, “As a result of the actions required by paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2023-0107, if there is a distortion, scratch, hammering mark, or impact mark that exceeds the allowable limit, or any crack, gap, or misalignment, before further flight, remove the cargo swing frame from service and replace it with an airworthy cargo swing frame.”
(7) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2023-0107.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0107 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, provided no external cargo or person(s) is hoisted.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Steven Warwick, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-5225; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0107, dated May 26, 2023; corrected June 2, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
The effective date of the final rule published in the
Rachel Cruz, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; Telephone (404) 305-5571.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2024-1980 in the
In the final rule published May 2, 2025, (90 FR 18777) for Docket No. FAA-2024-1980, the published coordinates were incorrect. Therefore, the FAA corrects the final rule as follows.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the final rule for Docket No. FAA-2024-2048, as published in the
1. On page 18778, in the third column under the heading “ASO NC E5 Tarboro, NC [Amended]”, the coordinates for Tarboro-Edgecombe Airport, NC are corrected to read “(Lat. 35°56′14″ N, long. 77°32′47″ W)”.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is amending its regulations that implement the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to revise language reading “Gulf of Mexico” or the associated acronym “GOM” to read “Gulf of America” or the associated acronym “GOA.” Executive
This final rule is effective on June 6, 2025.
Karen Thundiyil, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs, BOEM, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, at email address
Executive Order 14172 directs the Interior Department to take action to rename landmarks in accordance with the outlined directives. Section 4 of the Executive Order directs the Secretary to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, update the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) to reflect this change, and remove all references to the Gulf of Mexico. Agency maps, contracts, and other documents are to be updated accordingly. In the BOEM-administered portions of the CFR (30 CFR parts 500-599), there are multiple references to the Gulf of Mexico and the GOM acronym. This rule outlines those changes and where they need to occur.
This final action replaces references to the Gulf of Mexico and GOM with the Gulf of America and GOA, respectively, in the regulations at 30 CFR parts 550, 551, 553, 556, 560, 580, 582, and 585.
Entities potentially affected by this action are any end user of maps, Federal Regulations, or documents that include the Gulf of Mexico/GOM in text. However, these are administrative changes only and do not affect any legal rights, obligations, or interests of any affected party.
In addition to being available in the docket, BOEM will post an electronic copy of the documents related to these rulemaking changes at:
Section 5 of OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1334) authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations to administer leasing for mineral development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Section 5(a) of OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)) authorizes the Secretary to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out [provisions of OCSLA]” related to leasing on the OCS. This rule only makes administrative changes to names used in specific parts of these regulations.
With this final rule, BOEM is amending the regulatory text as follows.
Section 550.105 contains terms used in this part and lists the associated meaning or definition.
Section 550.115 uses the acronym GOM twice. This is changed to GOA.
The title of section 550.116 is updated to the Gulf of America. The use of GOM is changed to GOA.
Section 550.201 (a)
Section 550.225 (a)(2) refers to the Western GOM. This is changed to Western GOA.
Section 550.269 (a) refers to the Western and Central GOM Planning Areas. This is changed to Western and Central GOA Planning Areas.
Section 550.1495 (a)(2) contains the contact information for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office. Both uses of Gulf of Mexico are changed to the Gulf of America by this Final Rule.
Section 551.5 (d)(2) refers to office locations for filing applications for permits and provides the contact information for the Gulf of Mexico office. The two uses of Gulf of Mexico are changed to the Gulf of America.
Section 553.45 provides the submission address for the Gulf of Mexico Region office. This is changed to the Gulf of America Region office.
Section 556.102 (e)(2) refers to the Gulf of Mexico. This reference is changed to the Gulf of America. The usage of the term in “Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006” is not being changed as the Executive Order does not change the name of existing statutes.
Section 556.105(a) includes the term Gulf of Mexico and its acronym GOM; this acronym is changed to GOA and the definition for the acronym is changed to the Gulf of America. The acronym GOM found in the reference to the Central Planning Area of the GOM (CPA) is changed to GOA. The acronym GOM is also found in the reference to the Western Planning Area (WPA). This is changed to GOA. The definition of Central Planning Area (CPA) includes a reference to the Gulf of Mexico. This reference is changed to the Gulf of America. The definition of Eastern Planning Area includes a reference to the Gulf of Mexico. This reference is changed to the Gulf of America. The definition of Western Planning Area also includes a reference to the Gulf of Mexico. This reference is changed to the Gulf of America.
Section 556.309 (c) refers to the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas. This reference is changed to the Central and Western Gulf of America Planning Areas.
Section 556.900 (b)(1) refers to the Gulf of Mexico. This reference is changed to the Gulf of America.
Section 560.201 contains two definitions that mention the Gulf of Mexico. These are changed to the Gulf of America in the definitions of
Section 560.221 paragraph (b)(1) refers to the Gulf of Mexico. This reference is changed to the Gulf of America.
Section 580.13(b) refers to office locations for filing applications or notifications and provides the contact information for the Gulf of Mexico office. The two uses of Gulf of Mexico are changed to the Gulf of America.
Section 582.40 (f)(1) refers to the Gulf of Mexico. This reference is changed to the Gulf of America.
Section 585.700 (a) includes a chart of compliance requirements for the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR part 55 regulations. Table item (1) includes two references to the Gulf of Mexico. These references are changed to the Gulf of America. Section 585.700 (b) includes a reference to the Gulf of Mexico. This reference is changed to the Gulf of America.
E.O. 12866 gives OMB the authority to review regulatory actions that are categorized as “significant”;
• Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
• Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
• Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
• Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, it was not submitted to OMB for review.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability and reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. BOEM has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) unless the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). Because no proposed rule was published for this nomenclature change, no RFA analysis is required.
The SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 804(2), requires BOEM to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis, provide guidance, and help small businesses comply with statutes and regulations for major rulemakings. This action is not subject to the SBREFA because it: (1) does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (3) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
BOEM anticipates the final rule would have neither significant employment nor small business impacts; nor cause major price increases for consumers, businesses, or governments; nor significantly degrade competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. businesses to compete against foreign businesses. The rule only makes a nomenclature change in the regulatory text that mentions the specific terms included in the E.O.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman, and to the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of BOEM, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
The UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531—1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of regulatory actions on state, local and Tribal governments, and the private sector. Section 202 of UMRA generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for each proposed and final rule with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $195 million or more in any one year. BOEM has determined this action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA 2, U.S.C. 1531—1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small groups.
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
E.O. 12630,
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999) revoked and replaced Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 took effect on November 2, 1999, and thus applies to actions published on or after November 2, 1999. Sections 3 and 6 of Executive Order 13132 apply to policies with federalism implications, defined in the Executive Order as including actions that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
Regulatory actions that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government are subject to E.O. 13132. Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
E.O. 12988 requires that rules:
(1) Meet the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(2) Meet the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.
E.O. 13175 defines polices that have Tribal implications as regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that will or may have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, or on the relationship between the Federal Government and one or more Indian Tribes. Additionally, the DOI's consultation policy for Tribal Nations and ANCSA Corporations, as described in Departmental Manual part 512 chapter 4, expands on the above definition from E.O. 13175 and requires that BOEM invite Indian Tribes and ANCSA Corporations “early in the planning process to consult whenever a Departmental plan or action with Tribal Implications arises.” BOEM strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationships with Tribal Nations through a commitment to consultation with Tribes, recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty, and honoring BOEM's trust responsibilities for Tribal Nations.
BOEM evaluated the proposed rule under the DOI's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed environmental analysis under NEPA is not required because the final rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (see 43 CFR 46.205). This final rule meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a Departmental categorical exclusion in that this proposed rule is “of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” BOEM has also determined that the final rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
In promulgating this rule, BOEM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, app. C, sec. 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154). In accordance with the Data Quality Act, the Department has issued guidance regarding the quality of information that it relies upon for regulatory decisions. This guidance is available at the Department's website at:
Executive Order 13211 was issued on May 22, 2001, and requires Federal agencies to prepare a “Statement of Energy Effects” when undertaking certain regulatory actions. A Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of a “significant energy action” on energy supply, distribution and use; reasonable alternatives to the action; and the expected effects of the alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
Under E.O. 13211, BOEM is required to prepare and submit to OMB a “Statement of Energy Effects” for “significant energy actions.” This should include a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies) expected to result from the action and a discussion of reasonable alternatives and their effects. This action is not subject to E.O. 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
The CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, established a mechanism to expedite congressional review of agency rules. The CRA generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. It is important to note that the CRA applies only to final rules; it does not apply to proposed rules. BOEM generally submits a report containing the rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of department organization, procedure or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)).
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Federal lands, Government contracts, Investigations, Mineral resources, Oil and gas exploration, Oil pollution, Outer continental shelf, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rights-of-way, Sulfur.
Freedom of information, Oil and gas exploration, Outer continental shelf, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental protection, Financial responsibility, Intergovernmental relations, Liability, Limit of liability, Oil and gas exploration, Oil pollution, Outer continental shelf, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rights-of-way, Securities, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Mineral resources, Oil and gas exploration, Outer continental shelf, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rights-of-way.
Government contracts, Mineral resources, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Outer continental shelf, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental assessment, Data, Geological and geophysical (G&G), Mineral resources, Outer continental shelf, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Mineral resources, Mineral royalties, Outer continental shelf, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Assessment plans, Coastal zone, Compliance, Electric power, Energy, Environmental protection, Government lease, Intergovernmental relations, Marine resources, Marine safety, Natural resources, Ocean resources, Offshore energy, Offshore structures, Outer continental shelf, Payments, Planning, Power resources, Renewable energy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Revenue sharing, Rights-of-way, Right-of-use-and-easement, Wind energy.
This action by the Assistant Secretary is taken pursuant to an existing delegation of authority.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR chapter V as follows:
30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334.
Section 104, Public Law 97-451, 96 Stat. 2451 (30 U.S.C. 1714), Public Law 109-432, Div C, Title I, 120 Stat. 3000; 30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334; 33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716; E.O. 12777, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1331
33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716; 2716a; E.O. 12777, as amended.
31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 6213; 43 U.S.C. 1334.
(b) * * *
Section 104, Public Law 97-451, 96 Stat. 2451 (30 U.S.C. 1714), Public Law 109-432, Div C, Title I, 120 Stat. 3000; 30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334; 33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716; E.O. 12777, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1331
Section 104, Public Law 97-451, 96 Stat. 2451 (30 U.S.C. 1714), Public Law 109-432, Div C, Title I, 120 Stat. 3000; 30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334; 33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716; E.O. 12777, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1331
Section 104, Public Law 97-451, 96 Stat. 2451 (30 U.S.C. 1714), Public Law 109-432, Div C, Title I, 120 Stat. 3000; 30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334; 33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716; E.O. 12777, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1331
43 U.S.C. 1337.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation in the Upper Bay of New York Harbor in support of a racing event, Sail Grand Prix 2025. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life from the dangers associated with high-speed sailing during the event. This rule will temporarily prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, blocking, or loitering within the event area, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector New York or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 12:45 p.m. on June 5, 2025, through 5:30 p.m. on June 8, 2025. It will only be subject to enforcement, however, during the hours of 12:45 p.m. to 4 p.m. on June 5, 2025, and June 6, 2025, and from 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on June 7, 2025, and June 8, 2025.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email MST1 Kathryn Veal, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York; telephone 718-354-4151, email
As an organized water event of limited duration which is conducted according to a prearranged schedule, Sail Grand Prix (Sail GP) is a “Regatta or marine parade,” as defined at 33 CFR 100.05. An individual or organization planning to hold a regatta or marine parade which, by its nature, circumstances or location, will introduce extra or unusual hazards to the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States, must submit an application to hold it as outlined in 33 CFR 100.15. On December 5, 2024, a representative of Sail GP submitted an application under 33 CFR 100.15 to conduct Sail GP 2025 in the Upper Bay of New York Harbor for approximately four hours each day from June 5, 2025, through June 8, 2025. The event will
After approving plans for the holding of a regatta or marine parade within his or her district or zone, a Captain of the Port (COTP) is authorized to promulgate such special local regulations as he or she deems necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the approved regatta or marine parade as outlined in 33 CFR 100.35. Due to the high-profile nature of this event, spectator vessels and support craft that will be present and will have the potential to cause vessel congestion in proximity of the Anchorage Channel and the Hudson River. The COTP, Sector New York has determined that potential hazards associated with the race and race location are a safety concern for anyone within the race area and adjacent navigable waters and is therefore establishing these special local regulations.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impractical to do so due to insufficient time to publish a final rule by June 5, 2025.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that this rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the hazards associated with the race event.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation in the Upper Bay of New York Harbor for approximately four hours each day from June 5, 2025, through June 8, 2025. In the event that weather conditions prevent or delay a safe race start, the public will be notified of changes to the enforcement period through marine broadcasts, local notice to mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, or by on-scene designated representatives. The areas regulated by this special local regulation lie between Governors Island, Ellis Island, and Liberty Island and cover all navigable waters, from surface to bottom, as more specifically defined below. The Sail GP sponsor will mark the regulated area via colored visual markers and will designate a spectator area within the regulated area. The spectator area will be located on the northern end of the regulated area and will change depending upon the racecourse. The duration of the enforcement times is intended to ensure the safety of vessels, participants, and spectators, and those transiting the area during the scheduled practice and race periods. This special local regulation will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the vicinity of Liberty Island and Ellis Island and prohibit vessels and persons not participating in the race event from entering the dedicated race area. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulation through marine broadcasts, local notice to mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, or by on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the special local regulation's size, location, and duration. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the regulated area via the Buttermilk Channel and via a transit lane west of the race area. The event will impact a small, designated area of the New York Harbor for less than four hours each day. Considerations were made to adjust to an earlier time for Thursday, June 5, 2025, and Friday, June 6, 2025, so as to reduce the impact of the special local regulation on commuter ferries. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue notice of the special local regulation through marine broadcasts, local notice to mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, or by on-scene designated representatives, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules not subject to notice and comment. As the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting less than four hours that will limit entry to the race area without authorization from the COTP or their designated representatives. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by VHF-FM Channel 16. Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
(3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through marine broadcasts, local notice to mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, or by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
(2) In the event that weather conditions prohibit a safe race start or cause delays, the public will be notified of changes to the enforcement period as described in paragraph (d)(1) through marine broadcasts, local notice to mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, or by on-scene designated representatives.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for certain waters on the East River in Mathews, VA. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during an annual boat docking contest. This rulemaking prohibits persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 11 a.m. until 10 p.m. on July 5, 2025.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LCDR Justin Strassfield, Sector Virginia, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard, Telephone: (571) 608-2969; or
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable to publish an NPRM for a special local regulation which must be established by July 5, 2025 to prevent harm from potential navigation and safety hazards created by this event. There is not sufficient time to allow for a notice and comment period prior to the event.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with high-speed vessel events present a safety concern for anyone within the special local regulation. These hazards include personal injury and property damage which could result from collisions with spectator vessels and with nonparticipant vessels. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and people in the navigable waters who might otherwise be in the special local regulation before, during, and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a special local regulation (SLR) from 11 a.m. until 10 p.m. on July 5, 2025. The SLR will include all navigable waters of the East River within the following points: 37°24′12.0″ N, 076°20′48.4″ W; 37°24′12.0″ N, 076°20′52.0″ W; 37°24′13.0″ N, 076°20′52.0″ W; 37°24′13.1″ N, 076°20′48.6″ W, located near Williams Wharf in Mathews, VA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the boat docking contest event. No nonparticipant vessel or person will be permitted to enter the SLR without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Advance notifications will be made to affected users of the waterway via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the SLR. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules not subject to notice and comment. As the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting 9 hours that will prohibit entry within 100 yards of a vessel docking area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum for the Record supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by VHF FM Channel 16. Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
(3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through advanced notice via broadcast notice to mariners and by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Correcting amendment.
This final rule amends the Coast Guard's mariner credentialing regulations by correcting inadvertent errors made within the November 2024 final rule. Within the 2024 final rule, the Coast Guard unintentionally deleted two existing paragraphs from the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) and accidently reverted language in other existing paragraphs to previous versions. This correcting amendment reverts the language and adds those paragraphs back into the CFR as they appeared before the accidental deletion, and as edited by subsequent regulatory changes. These corrections do not create, remove, or modify any obligation under these regulations.
Effective June 6, 2025.
For information about this document call or email Mr. Brian Eichelberger, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1450, email
On October 3, 2023, the Coast Guard published the “Towing Vessel Firefighting Training” final rule (88 FR 67966), which amended 46 CFR 11.201(h)(3). Specifically, that final rule added paragraphs (h)(3)(iii) and (iv), which was a deregulatory action that removed certain training requirements to qualify for a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) endorsement on towing vessels, and reduced costs to mariners. That rule also modified paragraph (h)(3)(ii) to clarify the eligibility for certain endorsements to use a modified basic firefighting course to meet the requirements for an MMC and added “All” to paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and 11.201(h)(3)(i) for consistency.
On November 25, 2024, the Coast Guard published a final rule titled “Electronic Submission of Mariner Course Completion Data” (89 FR 93040). In addition to establishing requirements for training providers to electronically submit mariner course completion data to the Coast Guard, the rule also updated titles for certain officer and rating endorsements on a mariner's MMC and added capitalization to endorsement titles. The final rule's amendatory instructions unintentionally deleted paragraphs (h)(3)(iii) and (iv). Specifically, amendatory instruction number 29 of that final rule (89 FR 93070) laid out the new text of paragraphs (h)(2) through (4) but unintentionally omitted the existing text within paragraphs (h)(3)(iii) and (iv). Additionally, amendatory instruction number 29 improperly reverted the language in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(3)(i) and (ii) to previous language that existed before changes were made through the “Towing Vessel Firefighting Training” final rule. Specifically, paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(3)(i) need the word “All” added at the beginning of both paragraphs. Additionally, paragraph (h)(3)(ii) language should have continued to say, “for service on near-coastal waters” but was reverted back to “service on oceans.”
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) before
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seafarers.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard corrects 46 CFR part 11 by making the following correcting amendments:
14 U.S.C. 503; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, 8903, 8904, 8906, and 70105; Executive Order 10173; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4. Section 11.107 is also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) All national officer endorsements as Master or Mate on seagoing vessels of 200 GRT or more;
(3) * * *
(i) All officer endorsements as Master on vessels of less than 500 GT in ocean service.
(ii) All officer endorsements for Master or Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels for service on near-coastal waters, except Apprentice Mate of Towing Vessels.
(iii) All officer endorsements for Master or Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels for service on Great Lakes, except Apprentice Mate of Towing Vessels.
(iv) All officer endorsements as Master or Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels for service on inland waters or Western Rivers, except Apprentice Mate of Towing Vessels.
(A) The Coast Guard will accept a Coast Guard-approved modified basic firefighting course, which is the basic firefighting training described in this paragraph (h)(3) modified to only cover the equipment, fire prevention procedures, and firefighting operations required on towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes required in 46 CFR parts 140 and 142. A mariner who completes this modified basic firefighting course will be issued an endorsement that is restricted to inland waters or Western Rivers.
(B) To increase in scope to Great Lakes, near-coastal, or oceans, the applicant will be required to complete the firefighting course appropriate to the route sought.
This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rule; removal.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is removing its final rule concerning Final Offer Rate Review because the final rule was vacated upon judicial review. The Board is also terminating the proceeding in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2).
Effective June 6, 2025.
Amy C. Ziehm at (202) 245-0391. If you require accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued September 12, 2019, the Board proposed a new rate case procedure for smaller cases, known as Final Offer Rate Review (FORR).
Petitions for judicial review of the final rule were filed in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit and were ultimately consolidated in the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit held that the Board lacked statutory authority to prescribe rates through FORR and vacated the final rule.
In light of the Court's opinion, portions of 49 CFR parts 1002, 1111, 1114, and 1115 will be revised to
Additionally, like the FORR docket, the proceeding in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2) will again be terminated. Although this aspect of the final rule was not the subject of any argument before the Court of Appeals or of the Eighth Circuit's opinion, the Court's judgment formally vacated the Board's entire final rule and associated decision, including the aspect of it that terminated the proceeding in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2). Nothing in the Court's opinion suggests that the Board cannot terminate that proceeding again. In the interest of administrative efficiency, the Board will close that proceeding again, but, as stated in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, the Board “may revisit some of the ideas presented there depending on future developments.”
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the Board has determined that notice and comment are not required under the APA for this rulemaking, the requirements of the RFA do not apply.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), as amended by the GAO Database Modernization Act of 2023, requires that the Board submit a report to the Comptroller General if the Board revokes a rule or the rule “is made ineffective for any other reason.” 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(D). The Board will submit such a report for FORR. Pursuant to the CRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this final rule/removal as non-major, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Executive Order 12866, as modified by Executive Order 14215, provides that OIRA will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant. This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
This rulemaking does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
1. Parts 1002, 1111, 1114, and 1115 are modified as set forth below, and notice will be published in the
2. The proceeding in Docket No. EP 755 is terminated, and the petition for reconsideration filed by the American Chemistry Council, the Fertilizer Institute, the National Industrial Transportation League, the Chlorine Institute, and the Corn Refiners' Association is denied as moot.
3. The proceeding in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2) is terminated.
4. The modifications to parts 1002, 1111, 1114, and 1115 are effective on June 6, 2025. The remainder of this decision is effective on its date of service.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Primus, and Schultz. Board Member Primus concurred with a separate expression.
BOARD MEMBER PRIMUS, concurring:
At the outset, I feel as though I should apologize to shippers along our national freight rail network for the actions that led to this decision. I'm sorry the Eighth Circuit took such a narrow and woefully incorrect view of the Board's authority to develop a procedure that attempted to provide much needed rate relief. I'm sorry the Board chose not to launch a full-throated appeal of the court's myopic decision which, I believe, will have a lasting impact on future rate cases. But what I'm most sorry for is the fact that shippers will continue to be relegated to the black hole that is the Board's archaic rate-relief system. A system that has proven to provide more headaches and hardships than actual rate relief.
Reluctantly, I vote for today's decision because the Eighth Circuit has ordered the vacatur of the Board's Final Offer Rate Review (FORR) rule, but I do so under extreme protest. The Board's work on FORR spanned three previous chairmen, myself included, and the resulting rule was an appropriate attempt to make the adjudication of smaller rate disputes more accessible, reasonable, and less time-consuming. The recognition that small rate cases are too expensive and too complex to be worth pursuing under existing Board processes was central to Chairman Ann Begeman's establishment of the Rate Reform Task Force (RRTF) in 2018. Under Chairman Begeman's leadership, one of the RRTF's recommendations, for a “final offer” procedure for small rate cases, was incorporated into the Board's FORR rule, which was ultimately adopted in 2022 under Chairman Martin Oberman. The Board's defense of the FORR rule, culminating in the Eighth Circuit's decision to vacate the rule, occurred while I was Chairman.
The Eighth Circuit found that the Board lacked the statutory authority to prescribe rates through FORR. In addition, although the railroads appealing the FORR rule did not brief the question, the Eighth Circuit
Without the FORR rule, the inadequacies of the Board's existing processes for small rate disputes remain, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to find workable solutions for the industry. In this vein, I believe Congress has an important role to play, both in defining the Board's authority in rate cases more broadly and in small rate cases in particular. First, Congress should clarify that rate cases at the Board are not formal adjudications under the APA requiring formal, trial-like procedures. Second, Congress should enact legislation empowering the Board to require mandatory arbitration of small rate disputes, as doing so would allow the Board to explore implementation of another of the RRTF's recommendations for how the Board could improve adjudication of small rate cases.
Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, Freedom of information.
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 1321(a), the Surface Transportation Board amends parts 1002, 1111, 1114, and 1115 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A), (a)(6)(B), and 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; and 49 U.S.C. 1321. Section 1002.1(f)(11) is also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(f) * * *
49 U.S.C. 10701, 10704, 11701 and 1321.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(e)
(b)
(c) A defendant's reply evidence under the streamlined market dominance approach may address the factors in paragraph (a) of this section and any other issues relevant to market dominance. A complainant may elect to submit rebuttal evidence on market dominance issues. Reply and rebuttal filings under the streamlined market dominance approach are each limited to 50 pages, inclusive of exhibits and verified statements.
(d)(1) Pursuant to the authority under § 1011.6 of this chapter, an administrative law judge will hold a telephonic evidentiary hearing on the market dominance issues at the discretion of the complainant in lieu of the submission of a written rebuttal on market dominance issues.
(2) The hearing will be held on or about the date that the complainant's rebuttal evidence on rate reasonableness is due. The complainant shall inform the Board by letter submitted in the docket, no later than 10 days after defendant's reply is due, whether it elects an evidentiary hearing in lieu of the submission of a written rebuttal on market dominance issues.
5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(ii) In a rate case to be considered under the stand-alone cost or simplified standards methodologies, a reply to a motion to compel must be filed with the Board within 10 days of when the motion to compel is filed.
(3)
(4)
(d)
5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321; 49 U.S.C. 11708.
(e) Petitions must be filed within 20 days after the service of the action or within any further period (not to exceed 20 days) as the Board may authorize. However, in cases seeking expedited relief for service emergencies under the accelerated process at 49 CFR 1146.2, petitions must be filed within 5 days after the service of the action, and replies to petitions must be filed within 10 days after the service of the action.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment; request for comments.
NMFS announces inseason action for the Pacific halibut recreational fishery in the International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC) regulatory Area 2A. This action adds fishing dates (June 9, 10, 16, 17, and 30) in the Columbia River subarea. The additional fishing dates are intended to provide opportunity for anglers necessary to achieve the overall recreational fishery allocation in the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) 2025 Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan.
Effective June 9, 2025, through September 30, 2025. Comments due on or before June 23, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2024-0139, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Heather Fitch, (360) 867-8608, or
On April 2, 2025, NMFS published a final rule (90 FR 14422) implementing the 2025 Area 2A recreational (sport) fishery bag limits, fishing dates, and subarea allocations for all subareas in IPHC regulatory Area 2A. Inseason modifications to Area 2A recreational fisheries, including bag limits, state and subarea allocations, and fishing days per calendar week (
The final rule published on April 2, 2025 (90 FR 14422) that implemented the 2025 recreational fishery management measures also stated that, if at least 55 percent of the Columbia River subarea allocation remains as of May 25, 2025, then NMFS may take inseason action to add the following dates to the all-depth fishery: June 9, 10, 16, 17, and 30.
In accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(c), inseason actions are announced in the
After consulting with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and other appropriate entities, NMFS has determined that the following action is necessary to meet the management objective of achieving, but not exceeding, the subarea allocations. This action was not previously implemented in the final rule on April 2, 2025 (90 FR 14422). This action is intended to provide opportunity for anglers to achieve the overall Area 2A recreational fishery allocation.
The Pacific halibut fishery regulations for Area 2A at 50 CFR 300.63(c)(6) provide NMFS with the authority to modify annual management measures inseason, including fishing periods, following consultation with the Council, IPHC and the affected states, where such inseason modifications action is necessary to allow allocation objectives to be met and will not result in exceeding the allocation for Area 2A (50 CFR 300.63(c)(6)(i)(A), (i)(B) and (ii)(A)).
The Columbia River subarea recreational fishery opened on May 1, 2025. On May 25, 2025, catch estimates in the Columbia River subarea indicated that the remaining allocation was likely to exceed 55 percent of the subarea allocation, the threshold established in the final rule (90 FR 14422, April 2, 2025) to indicate that adding fishing dates may be warranted. Updated catch estimates show that, through May 25, 2025, anglers in the Columbia River subarea have harvested 8,745 pounds (3.97 mt) of the 19,087 pounds (8.7 mt) available for that subarea, leaving 10,342 pounds, or 54 percent remaining. Although the estimated remaining allocation is slightly under the 55 percent threshold described in the final rule (90 FR 14422, April 2, 2025) for setting additional dates in June by 156 pounds (0.07 mt), sufficient allocation remains to warrant adding fishing dates in the Columbia River subarea all-depth fishery. Catches on May 23 and 25, 2025, were anomalously high and current projections continue to indicate that a portion of the subarea allocation would go unharvested without additional fishing dates.
This inseason action implements the following additional fishing dates for the Columbia River subarea all-depth fishery:
If the subarea allocation is projected to be reached prior to June 30, the subarea will be closed when there is not sufficient subarea allocation for another full day of fishing.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. This action is taken under the regulatory authority at 50 CFR 300.63(c)(6), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. WDFW and ODFW provided updated landings data to NMFS on May 29, 2025, showing that through May 25, 2025, an estimated 54 percent of the Columbia River subarea annual allocation was remaining. The final rule (90 FR 14422, April 2, 2025) specifies that when the remaining allocation in the Columbia River Subarea is at least 55 percent of the subarea allocation as of May 25, 2025, additional fishing dates may be warranted to increase angler opportunity to reach the overall subarea and Area 2A recreational fishery allocations. Although the remaining Columbia River subarea allocation is slightly under the threshold for additional dates in June, projections indicate that a portion of the Area 2A allocation would likely go unharvested without additional fishing dates, and thus that this inseason action is necessary to allow for the Area 2A allocation objectives to be met in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(c)(6)(i)(A). This action should be implemented as soon as possible to allow fishery participants time to prepare to take advantage of the additional fishing dates. As the subarea closes on September 30, 2025, implementing this action through proposed and final rulemaking would undermine the benefit this action is intended to provide to fishery participants. Without implementation of additional fishing dates in the Columbia River subarea, the overall Area 2A recreational fishery allocation is unlikely to be harvested this year, thus limiting the economic benefits of the fishery to the fishery participants and obstructing the goals of the 2025 Catch Sharing Plan. It is necessary that this rulemaking be implemented in a timely manner so that planning for additional fishing dates can take place, and to allow for business and personal decision making by the regulated public impacted by this action, which includes recreational charter fishing operations, associated port businesses, and private anglers who do not live near the coastal access points for this fishery, among others. To ensure the regulated public is fully aware of this action, notice of this regulatory action will be provided to anglers through a telephone hotline, news release, and by the relevant state Fish and Wildlife agencies. NMFS will receive public comments for 15 days after publication of this action, in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(c)(6)(iv). No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the process described in regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c).
For the reasons discussed above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date and make this action effective immediately upon filing for public inspection, as a delay in effectiveness of this action would constrain fishing opportunity, be inconsistent with the goals of the 2025 Catch Sharing Plan, and potentially limit the economic opportunity intended by this rule to the associated fishing communities. This inseason action is not expected to result in exceeding the allocation for the Columbia River subarea or IPHC regulatory Area 2A. NMFS regulations allow the Regional Administrator to modify sport fishing periods, bag limits, size limits, days per calendar week, and subarea allocations, when the action supports allocation objectives being met, and provided that such action will not result in exceeding the catch limit for the subarea. NMFS recently received information on the progress of landings in the recreational fisheries in the Columbia River subarea, indicating additional season dates should be implemented in the fishery to ensure optimal harvest of the subarea allocation. As stated above, it is in the public interest that this action not be delayed, because a delay in the effectiveness of these new dates could prevent the allocation objectives of the recreational Pacific halibut fishery from being met.
16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing, and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking (PRM) from Thomas Basso on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, dated January 22, 2025, requesting that the NRC revise its regulations to remove specific conditions, clarify a specific requirement, and incorporate requested code cases to the next revisions of regulatory guides 1.84 and 1.147, which will be incorporated by reference into the agency's rulemaking on industry standards. The petition was docketed by the NRC on March 6, 2025, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-127. The NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-50-127 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public comment on this petition at this time.
Submit comments by August 5, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
•
•
•
You can read a plain language description of this PRM at
Christopher Prescott, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7000, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0060 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The PRM was filed by Thomas Basso of the Nuclear Energy Institute. The PRM requests that the NRC revise its regulations at title 10 of the
The petitioner proposes the following specific changes to the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a (also see Attachment 1 of the petition):
•
•
•
The petitioner states that these changes would remove conditions that are not necessary to ensure safety (as demonstrated by long-standing safety performance) or are no longer needed by the industry.
The petitioner also proposes the inclusion of ASME Section XI, Division 1 Code Cases N-752, N-88-2, N-926, N-935, and N-939 in draft Revision 22 to RG 1.147 and the following six code cases to draft Revision 41 to RG 1.84. The NRC has either conditioned or not approved these code cases for inclusion into the RG. The petitioner describes the basis for each change as follows (also see Attachment 2 of the petition).
•
•
•
•
•
•
The NRC has determined that the petition meets the sufficiency requirements for docketing a PRM under 10 CFR 2.803, “Petition for rulemaking-NRC action.” The NRC will examine the issues raised in PRM-50-127 and any comments received in response to this comment request to determine whether these issues should be considered in rulemaking. The public can monitor further action on the rulemaking that will address this petition by searching Docket ID NRC-2025-0060 on the Federal rulemaking website,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) Model PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 engines. This proposed AD was prompted by an analysis of an event involving an International Aero Engines, LLC (IAE LLC) Model PW1127GA-JM engine, which experienced a high-pressure compressor (HPC) 7th-stage integrally bladed rotor (IBR-7) separation that resulted in an aborted takeoff. This proposed AD would require repetitive angle ultrasonic scan inspections (AUSIs) of the HPC 15th-stage disks, front turbine hubs, high pressure turbine (HPT) 1st-stage air seals, and HPT 2nd-stage hubs for crack indications, and removal from service and replacement if necessary, and for certain serial numbers, removal from service and replacement of the HPT 1st-stage air seal. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 21, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For PW material identified in this proposed AD, contact PW, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: (800) 565-0140; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Molly Sturgis, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (562) 627-5373; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Molly Sturgis, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
On December 24, 2022, an Airbus Model A320neo airplane powered by IAE LLC Model PW1127GA-JM engines, experienced a failure of the HPC IBR-7 that resulted in an engine shutdown and aborted take-off. Following this event, the manufacturer conducted a records review of production and field-returned parts and re-evaluated their engineering analysis methodology. The new analysis found that the failure of the HPC IBR-7 was caused by a nickel powdered metal anomaly, similar in nature to an anomaly previously observed. The analysis also concluded that there is an increased risk of failure for additional nickel powdered metal parts in certain nickel powdered metal production campaigns, and these parts are susceptible to failure much earlier than previously determined. As a result, the FAA is proposing additional AUSIs for certain affected nickel powdered metal parts and removal from service of certain affected nickel powdered metal parts. Certain PW Model PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 engines are among the products affected by this condition. This condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained disk failure, release of high energy debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible loss of the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed the following service information:
• PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-112-A72-365, Revision No. 1, dated June 20, 2024, which specifies procedures for performing repetitive AUSIs on affected HPC 15th-stage disks.
• PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-366, dated June 20, 2024, which specifies procedures for performing repetitive AUSIs on affected HPT 1st-stage air seals.
• PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-367, dated June 20, 2024, which specifies procedures for performing repetitive AUSIs on affected front turbine hubs.
• PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-368, dated June 20, 2024, which specifies procedures for performing repetitive AUSIs on affected HPT 2nd-stage hubs.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require repetitive AUSIs of the HPC 15th-stage disks, front turbine hubs, HPT 1st-stage air seals, and HPT 2nd-stage hubs for crack indications, and removal from service and replacement if necessary. This proposed AD would also require, for certain serial numbers, removal from service and replacement of the HPT 1st-stage air seal.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 124 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that 124 engines will need AUSIs of the HPC 15th-stage disk, front turbine hub, HPT 2nd-stage hub, and HPT 1st-stage air seal; and 6 engines will need replacement of the HPT 1st-stage air seals.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by July 21, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) Model PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section; 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by an analysis of an event involving an International Aero Engines, LLC Model PW1127GA-JM engine, which experienced a high-pressure compressor (HPC) 7th-stage integrally bladed rotor separation that resulted in an engine shutdown and aborted takeoff. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC 15th-stage disk, front turbine hub, high pressure turbine (HPT) 1st-stage air seal, and HPT 2nd-stage hub. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained disk failure, release of high energy debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1)
(2) At the next piece part opportunity after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at every piece part opportunity, perform angle ultrasonic scan inspections (AUSIs) of the HPC 15th-stage disk, front turbine hub, HPT 1st-stage air seal, and HPT 2nd-stage hub for crack indications in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this AD.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3) If during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, any crack indication is found, before further flight, remove the part from service and replace with a part eligible for installation.
For the purposes of this AD:
(1) A “piece part opportunity” is one of the conditions specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) through (iv).
(i) The HPC 15th-stage disk is removed from the engine and all blades are removed.
(ii) The front turbine hub is removed from the engine and all blades are removed.
(iii) The HPT 2nd-stage hub is removed from the engine and all blades are removed.
(iv) The HPT 1st-stage air seal is fully disassembled from the engine.
(2) A “part eligible for installation” is:
(i) An HPC 15th-stage disk having P/N 51S115, 51S315, 55H615, or 56H015 that has passed the AUSI required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD.
(ii) An HPC 15th-stage disk having P/N 51S115 or 56H015 that has a certificate of conformance that shows compliance with Non-Destructive Inspection Procedure (NDIP) NDIP-1276.
(iii) An HPC 15th-stage disk having P/N 51S315 or 55H615 that has a certificate of conformance that shows compliance with NDIP-1289.
(iv) A front turbine hub having P/N 55L801 or 55L901 that has passed the AUSI required by paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(v) A front turbine hub having P/N 55L801 that has a certificate of conformance that shows compliance with NDIP-1273.
(vi) A front turbine hub having P/N 55L901 that has a certificate of conformance that shows compliance with NDIP-1288.
(vii) An HPT 1st-stage air seal having P/N 50L663 or 50L959 that has passed the AUSI required by paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(viii) An HPT 1st-stage air seal having P/N 50L663 that has a certificate of conformance that shows compliance with NDIP-1286.
(ix) An HPT 1st-stage air seal having P/N 50L959 that has a certificate of conformance that shows compliance with NDIP-1287.
(x) An HPT 2nd-stage hub having P/N 53L202 or 54L802 that has passed the AUSI required by paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this AD.
(xi) An HPT 2nd-stage hub having P/N 53L202 that has a certificate of conformance that shows compliance with NDIP-1274.
(xii) An HPT 2nd-stage hub having P/N 54L802 that has a certificate of conformance that shows compliance with NDIP-1275.
(xiii) Any HPC 15th-stage disk, front turbine hub, HPT 1st-stage air seal, or HPT 2nd-stage hub that is new, zero-time, and has passed an AUSI at new part production.
(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 local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) 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 local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Molly Sturgis, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (562) 627-5373; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pratt & Whitney (PW) Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-112-A72-365, Revision No. 1, dated June 20, 2024.
(ii) PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-366, dated June 20, 2024.
(iii) PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-367, dated June 20, 2024.
(iv) PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-368, dated June 20, 2024.
(3) For PW material identified in this AD, contact PW, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: (800) 565-0140; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, PHMSA intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of amendments to the pipeline safety regulations governing liquefied natural gas (LNG). This document initiates the process for determining the scope of considerations to be addressed in the EIS and for identifying any significant environmental matters related to the proposed action. PHMSA invites comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, stakeholders, and the public in this scoping process to help identify any matters of environmental significance, as well as reasonable alternatives to be examined in the EIS.
The scoping process is anticipated to culminate in the preparation and issuance of a Draft EIS, which would be made available for public comment concurrently with the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Scoping comments should be received on or before July 7, 2025, to ensure that PHMSA has an opportunity to consider scoping comments. PHMSA will consider comments received after that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number PHMSA-2019-0091 using any of the following methods:
Comments are posted without changes or edits to
Carolyn Nelson, Office of Planning and Analytics, PHMSA, by email at
In a forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), PHMSA will propose amendments to the safety standards in 49 CFR part 193 for the siting, design, installation, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. PHMSA has recently issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting stakeholder feedback on potential amendments to include in the forthcoming NPRM.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
PHMSA has not revised the safety standards in 49 CFR part 193 since the early 2000s and many of the concepts in the current regulations date to the
PHMSA intends to amend 49 CFR part 193 to address these congressional mandates, to account for current technologies, best practices, and lessons learned, and to incorporate recent editions of consensus industry standards by reference, 49 U.S.C. 60102(l). PHMSA's effort to update 49 CFR part 193 advances President Trump's goal of unleashing American energy and achieving economic prosperity by alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens as well.
PHMSA is proposing to update its safety standards for LNG facilities to address congressional mandates, to account for current technologies, best practices, and lessons learned, and to incorporate recent editions of consensus industry standards by reference. To achieve these objectives, PHMSA would amend the regulations in 49 CFR part 193 that apply to the siting, design, installation, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of LNG facilities, by incorporating more recent editions of industry standards by reference. Accordingly, the proposed action for consideration in the EIS includes the following components: (1) revising 49 CFR part 193 to incorporate by reference provisions of the 2023 edition of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 59A, “Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas”; (2) implementing the congressional mandate in section 27 of the PIPES Act of 2016
PHMSA would also consider a no action alternative. The no action alternative serves as a baseline to compare the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives.
PHMSA's NEPA analysis will consider reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed action and the reasonable alternatives. PHMSA intends to develop regulations that may alter the siting, design, installation, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance activities of LNG facilities. PHMSA anticipates evaluating the following potential impacts in the EIS, including but not limited to reasonably foreseeable:
• Effects on populations located near LNG facilities;
• Impacts related to public safety and human health in the event of accidental release of hazardous substances from LNG facilities;
• Effects on human health from factors such as emissions of air pollutants;
• Effects on socioeconomic factors such as economy, employment, transportation (
• Effects on historic and cultural resources;
• Effects on land use; and
• Effects on natural resources.
PHMSA does not authorize the construction or operation of LNG facilities. PHMSA's forthcoming NPRM would not authorize any construction activities or require any permits or authorizations. Agencies that would like to request cooperating or participating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
PHMSA anticipates its NEPA analysis will consider reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed amendments to 49 CFR part 193 and reasonable alternatives. The public is encouraged to provide information and comments on the range of alternatives and the potential environmental impacts that could result from this action. All comments relevant to the scoping process are welcome.
The public may comment by using any of the methods described in the
PHMSA will consider the comments received in response to this document in determining next steps. If necessary, separate
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2025, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.81(a)(5).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 21, 2025.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and revised draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) evaluating the potential environmental impacts and plant pest risk that may result from the approval of a petition for nonregulated status for blight-tolerant American chestnut (
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
• Our reading room, which is located in Room 1620 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
The petition, draft environmental impact statement, and draft plant pest risk assessment, and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
The petition, draft environmental impact statement, and draft plant pest risk assessment are also available on the APHIS website at:
Mr. Alan Pearson, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3944; email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.
In 2020, APHIS received a petition from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) (APHIS Petition Number 19-309-01p) seeking a determination of nonregulated status for blight-tolerant Darling 58 American chestnut (
According to our process for soliciting public comment when considering petitions for determination of nonregulated status of regulated organisms, APHIS accepts written comments regarding a petition once APHIS deems it complete. On August 19, 2020, we announced in the
As part of our evaluation of the petition and consideration of public comments, APHIS determined that the proposed determination of nonregulated status has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
APHIS solicited public comment on the notice for a period of 30 days ending September 7, 2021, as part of its scoping process to identify issues to address in the draft EIS. We received a total of 3,964 public comments.
On November 10, 2022, we published in the
Comments on the draft EIS and draft PPRA were required to be received on or before December 27, 2022. We extended the comment period for an additional 30 days, to January 26, 2023, to allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
Subsequently, in August 2024, ESF submitted a revised petition to provide additional clarifications and corrections about the chestnut event. In January 2020, ESF initially submitted a petition referring to Darling 58 instead of Darling 54. These two lines were produced at the same time, using the same transgenes in the same genetic background, so they express the same protein products. Multiple analyses in 2023 revealed that essentially all the offspring from the initial crosses were derived from Darling 54, due to a labeling error in 2016. Since nearly all of the phenotypic information in the original petition was generated from Darling 54 offspring, a revised petition was submitted to correct the line name and provide updates on Darling 54 chestnuts based on data collected since the initial submission. As a result of the revised petition, APHIS evaluated the new information provided on Darling 54 and revised the draft EIS and draft PPRA.
The issues discussed in the draft EIS were developed by considering the public input from the
APHIS is making available the revised petition, the revised draft EIS, and the draft PPRA, for a 45-day public review and comment period. The revised petition, the draft EIS, and the draft PPRA are available as indicated under
The draft EIS was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The EPA will publish a separate notice in the
Foreign Agricultural Service and Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Foreign Agricultural Service's (FAS) intention and Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) intention to request on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) an extension from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a currently approved information collection in support of the USDA's Regional Agricultural Promotion Program.
Comments on this notice must be received by August 5, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
You may send comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0551-0049, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Curt Alt, 202 690-4784,
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Kenneth Vernon, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be available without change, including any personal information provided, for inspection online at
Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for OMB approval.
Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact
Foreign Agricultural Service and Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Foreign Agricultural Service's (FAS) intention to request on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) an extension from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a currently approved information collection in support of the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program.
Comments on this notice must be received by August 5, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
You may send comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0551-0038, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Curt Alt, 202 690-4784,
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Kenneth Vernon, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be available without change, including any personal information provided, for inspection online at
Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print,
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Alliance Corridor, Inc., grantee of FTZ 196, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Radix Group Int'l dba DHL Global Forwarding, located in Fort Worth, Texas. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on June 3, 2025.
The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that vanillin from the People's Republic of China (China) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is October 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024.
Applicable June 6, 2025.
Claudia Cott or Bryan Hansen, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4270 or (202) 482-3683, respectively.
On January 16, 2025, Commerce published the
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The product covered by this investigation is vanillin from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce conducted verification of the sales and factors of production information submitted by Jiangxi Brother Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Jiangxi Brother).
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding the
Consistent with the
We received comments
Consistent with the
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period, October 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in this final determination to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after January 16, 2025, the date of publication of the
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon publication of this notice, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties for appropriate entries.
Commerce will instruct CBP to require the following cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties for all appropriate entries: (1) for the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the applicable cash deposit rate is listed in the table for that combination; (2) for all combinations of Chinese producers/exporters of the merchandise under consideration that have not established eligibility for separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all third country exporters of merchandise under consideration not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese producer/exporter combination (or China-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter or, if the exporter/producer combination does not have its own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the China-wide rate. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a final affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, Commerce offsets the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate CVD rate. Commerce has continued to adjust the cash deposit rate for export subsidies in the companion CVD investigation by the appropriate export subsidy rate as
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of vanillin. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, all cash deposits posted will be refunded, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section above.
This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is vanillin, with the molecular formula C
Merchandise subject to the investigation is specified within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 2912.41.0000 and 2912.42.0000. The HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the merchandise covered by the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of vanillin from the People's Republic of China (China). This investigation covers one mandatory respondent, Jiaxing Guihua Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. (Guihua), and the period of investigation is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
Applicable June 6, 2025.
Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936.
On November 18, 2024, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
The product covered by this investigation is vanillin from China. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in December 2024, Commerce verified the information reported by Guihua using its standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant documents provided at verification.
We have discussed the subsidy programs under investigation, and addressed the issues raised in interested parties' case and rebuttal briefs, in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs that Commerce found countervailable, it determined that the program provided a subsidy,
Based on our review of the information on the record and comments received from interested parties, we modified our calculations of the benchmarks used for the Provision of Caustic Soda for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR), Provision of Sulfuric Acid for LTAR, and Provision of Hydrogen Peroxide for LTAR programs. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act provides that in a final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined that is equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any rates that are zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination to parties to the proceeding within five days of public announcement of the determination or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
As a result of the
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, Commerce will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated in the table above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated countervailing duties deposited, or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or cancelled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of vanillin from China. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days of this final determination, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of U.S. imports of vanillin from China. Commerce is making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. Commerce will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in its files, provided the ITC confirms that it will
If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is vanillin, with the molecular formula C
Merchandise subject to the investigation is specified within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 2912.41.0000 and 2912.42.0000. The HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the merchandise covered by the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that companies in the People's Republic of China (China) made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) March 1, 2023, through February 29, 2024.
Applicable June 6, 2025.
Blair Hood or Dusten Hom, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8329 and (202) 482-5075, respectively.
On January 2, 2025, Commerce published in the
The products covered by the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this administrative review are addressed in
Based on the comments received from interested parties regarding our
In the
In accordance with Commerce's policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the China-wide entity.
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period March 1, 2023, through February 29, 2024:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these final results of review to interested parties in this review within five days after public announcement of the final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For ATC and Botao, which have final weighted-average dumping margins that are not zero or
Pursuant to a refinement in our non-market economy practice, for sales that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by ATC and Botao, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries associated with those sales at the rate for the China-wide entity. For all non-selected separate rate applicants subject to this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR at the average of the rates calculated for ATC and Botao as listed above. For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by ATC and Botao for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies subject to this review will be the rate established in these final results of the review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.2133(h) and 51.221(b)(5).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Science Advisory Board (SAB). The members will discuss issues outlined in the section on Matters to be considered.
The meeting is scheduled for July 22, 2025, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The time and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. For the latest agenda please refer to the SAB website:
The meeting will be held virtually. The link for the webinar registration will be posted, when available, on the SAB website:
Casey Stewart, Executive Director, SSMC3, Room 11360, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone Number: 240-381-0833; Email:
The NOAA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was originally established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997. In 2017, the SAB became a non-discretionary committee when Congress mandated that the SAB shall continue to maintain two specific subcommittees [Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-25) secs. 401, 508]. The SAB is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on long- and short-range strategies for research, education and the application of science to resource management and environmental assessment and prediction. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
Meeting materials, including work products, will also be available on the SAB website:
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 initial surveys will be conducted for the Chesapeake Bay NERR in Virginia (CBNERR-VA), Weeks Bay NERR (WBNERR), and Grand Bay NERR (GNDNERR), and the survey will be repeated regularly in other NERRs based on information needs and budget.
The NERRS is a Federal-State partnership program for the stewardship, education, and research of unique estuarine sites. This data collection supports the NERRS' vision of establishing healthy estuaries and coastal watersheds where human and ecological communities thrive. The NERRS has identified five priority research areas, including a focus on social science and economic processes within each NERR site. However, limited data exist characterizing stakeholder activities, attitudes, knowledge, and preferences, including their spatial aspects. Gathering such data is essential for effective management of stakeholder groups, regulatory proposals, and resource management decisions.
Designated in 1986, WBNERR is located along the eastern shore of Mobile Bay in Baldwin County, Alabama. CBNERR-VA, designated in 1991, comprises four reserve sites within the York River in the southern Chesapeake Bay subregion. Finally, GNDNERR was established in 1999 and is located in the Grand Bay Savannah Complex along the Mississippi-Alabama state line in Jackson County, Mississippi. All three NERRs prioritize public access and responsible use to protect ecosystems, identifying public sites, minimizing conflicts, and evaluating visitor use. Therefore, information is needed on who uses these NERR sites, their motivations, management preferences, and why some do not visit. This data supports conservation and management goals, strengthens decision-making, increases capacity, and extends education and outreach. It is also required by NOAA to meet objectives related to ocean and coastal planning and management. The data benefits State and local officials as well.
NOAA's mission is to provide science, service and stewardship for, among other activities, management of the nation's oceans and coasts. NOAA supports “comprehensive ocean and coastal planning and management” in order to facilitate use of oceans and coasts, while also ensuring “continued access to coastal areas, sustained ecosystems, maintained cultural heritage, and limited cumulative impacts.” NOAA is subject to and supports mandates of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1452 (303)(2)(D)), which encourages the wise use of coastal resources, including energy activity. The CZMA also encourages the inclusion and participation of the public in carrying out the tenets of the act (16 U.S.C. 1452 (303)(4)). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(A)) mandates Federal agencies to use social science data to assess the impacts of Federal actions on the human environment. Consequently, up-to-date sociological data is needed to support Federal agency obligations under each of these acts.
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. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number 0648-0829.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS announces a public meeting of the 33rd General Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Section to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the 18th Scientific Advisory Subcommittee (SAS) to the GAC. This meeting will be held on July 30 and 31, 2025 via webinar. The meeting topics are described under the
The virtual meeting of the SAS and GAC will be held on Wednesday July 30, 2025, and Thursday July 31, 2025, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. PDT each day (or until business is concluded). You must complete the registration process by June 27, 2025, if you plan to attend the meeting (see
If you plan to attend the meeting, which will be held by webinar, please register at
Lucille Bulkeley, NMFS West Coast Region, 858-546-5620,
The timing of U.S. SAS and GAC meetings are adjusted based on the dates of the IATTC and Agreement on International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) Annual Meetings. This year, the IATTC will convene its 16th Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) June 2-6 2025, and the 103rd Annual Meeting of the IATTC, subsidiary bodies, and meetings of the AIDCP will be held on August 26-September 5, 2025, in Panama. For 2025, the combined U.S. SAS and GAC Meeting will be held on July 30-31, after the IATTC SAC Meeting and before the IATTC and AIDCP meetings. This timing allows for scientific topics presented at the IATTC SAC Meeting, including stock assessments, to be discussed and used to inform U.S. positions at the combined U.S. SAS and GAC Meeting. This meeting will also include updates from IATTC working groups and is expected to include presentations of draft U.S. proposals to be submitted to the IATTC. An executive session may be called in order to discuss sensitive information, including possible U.S. negotiating positions for the upcoming IATTC Annual Meeting.
In accordance with the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951
The meetings of the SAS and GAC are open to the public, unless in executive session. The time and manner of public comment will be at the discretion of the Chairs for the SAS and GAC. For more information and updates on the upcoming IATTC meetings, please visit the IATTC's website:
Given the virtual nature of these meetings, the agenda will be concise. The SAS and GAC meeting to prepare for the 103rd IATTC Annual Meeting is expected to cover a broad spectrum of topics including but not limited to:
(1) Outcomes of the most recent IATTC stock assessments and updates for tuna, tuna-like species, and other species caught in association with those fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean;
(2) Evaluation of the IATTC Staff's Recommendations to the Commission for 2025;
(3) Potential proposal(s) to the IATTC;
(4) Updates from Joint IATTC-Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Northern Committee Working Group on Pacific Bluefin Tuna;
(5) Recommendations from the SAS and GAC members; and
(6) Other issues as they arise.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Lucille Bulkeley (see
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 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) previously collected survey data in 2007, 2012, and 2017 for conducting economic analyses of marine sport fishing in Alaska. These surveys were necessary to understand the factors that affect marine recreational fishing and its economic value. The proposed update from the previously conducted mail survey is a push-to web survey focused on collecting data from a subset of the Alaska saltwater angler population that participated in a sport angling trip via a charter boat. The focus on the charter angler subpopulation is due to that population being of primary concern for fishery managers. This data collection is needed to improve estimates of fishing trip values potentially affected by changes in federal recreational fisheries off Alaska, including recent declines in populations of Pacific halibut and subsequent measures to manage harvest in the Alaska recreational charter fishing sector. Numerous questions in the questionnaire have been updated to better reflect, and understand the effects of, recent changes in Alaska marine recreational fisheries.
The Federal Government is responsible for the management of the Pacific halibut sport fishery off Alaska, while the State of Alaska manages the salmon sport fisheries (Chinook, coho, sockeye, chum, and pink), as well as several other saltwater sport fisheries. The updated survey's scope covers marine sport charter fishing for Pacific halibut, salmon, and other popular marine sport species in Alaska (
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
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
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
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 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries) has conservation and management responsibilities for many living marine resources and their habitat. NMFS collects and uses economic data to make more than a cursory determination of whether a variety of provisions in the applicable laws, Executive Orders (EOs), and NOAA or NMFS strategies and policies have been met by past fishery conservation and management actions or will be met by proposed actions. The relevant measures of economic performance include costs, earnings, and profitability (net revenue); productivity and economic efficiency; capacity; economic stability; the level and distribution of net economic benefits to society; and market power. The economic impacts include sector, community, or region-specific and national employment, sales, value-added, and income impacts. The efforts to monitor, explain and predict changes in economic performance and impacts are ongoing and contribute to the value of the information contained in regulatory analyses of current and proposed fishery conservation and management measures, stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) reports, as well as other technical and scientific reports that address changes in economic performance and impacts.
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
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes product(s) and service(s) previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: July 06, 2025.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
In accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.3(b), the Committee intends to add the services requirement listed below to the Procurement List as a mandatory purchase only for contracting activity at location listed with the proposed qualified nonprofit agency as the authorized source of supply. Prior to adding the service to the Procurement List, the Committee will consider other pertinent information, including information from Government personnel and relevant comments from interested parties regarding the Committee's intent to geographically limit this services requirement.
The following service(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for
The following product(s) and service(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds product(s) and service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes product(s) and service(s) from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
On February 21, 2025, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (operating as the U.S. AbilityOne Commission) published an initial notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. (90 FR 10074). This final notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. The Committee has determined that the product(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government and has added these product(s) to the Procurement List as a mandatory purchase for Federal entities. In accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.2, the Committee has authorized the qualified nonprofit agencies described with the product(s) as the mandatory source(s) of supply.
On March 15, 2025, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (operating as the U.S. AbilityOne Commission) published an initial notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. (90 FR 12153). The Committee determined that the service(s) listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government and has added this service to the Procurement List as a mandatory purchase for the contracting activity listed below. In accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.3(b), the mandatory purchase requirement is limited to the contracting activity at location listed, and in accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.2, the Committee has authorized nonprofit agency listed as the mandatory source(s) of supply.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product(s) and service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) and service(s) are added to the Procurement List:
On May 2, 2025 (90 FR 18838), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) and service(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.
Announcement of public hearing.
The Board of Directors of U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), in accordance with the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act of 2018, will hold a public hearing to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to present their views. Those wishing to attend, present at, or submit a written statement to the Board prior to the public hearing must provide advance notice to the agency as detailed below.
2 p.m. EST, Monday, June 30, 2025.
The public hearing will take place virtually. Access information will be provided at the time of attendee registration.
Notices of intent to attend or present at the public hearing must include the individual's name, title, organization, address, email address, phone number, and a concise summary of the subject matter to be presented. Oral presentations may not exceed five minutes and may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, to afford all participants an opportunity to be heard.
Written statements submitted to the Board prior to the public hearing must include the individual's name, title, organization, address, email address, and phone number. Statements must be typewritten, double-spaced, and less than ten pages in length.
Department of the Navy (DoN), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the DoN (including the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC)), has prepared and filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military Training (CJMT). The Revised Draft EIS includes an analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with conducting land-based training, specifically within the Military Lease Area on the island of Tinian in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). New training infrastructure would be constructed on Tinian to support the training.
The 75-day public comment period begins on June 6, 2025, and ends on August 20, 2025. The comment period includes an additional 30 calendar days (from the required 45 days) to allow the public sufficient time to review and comment. In support of NEPA requirements, in-person public meetings on the islands of Tinian, Saipan, and Rota will be held in June 2025 to provide an overview of the Revised Draft EIS and take comments from the public. Each meeting will also provide an opportunity to learn about how the USMC is complying with the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and to comment on resolving potential effects on historic properties.
The public can submit comments during the Revised Draft EIS public review and comment period at one of the in-person public meetings, electronically via the project website (
Five in-person public meetings will be held as follows:
1. June 23 and 24, 2025, beginning at 5 p.m. Chamorro standard time (ChST) at the Tinian Junior/Senior High School Cafeteria, Canal Street, San Jose, Tinian;
2. June 25 and 26, 2025, beginning at 5 p.m. ChST at the Crowne Plaza (Hibiscus Hall), Coral Tree Avenue, Garapan, Saipan;
3. June 27, 2025, beginning at 3 p.m. ChST at the Rota Mayor's Office, San Francisco de Borja Highway, Tatachok, Rota.
Comments on the Draft EIS may be provided at the in-person public meetings, electronically through the project website at:
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to reduce joint training deficiencies for U.S. Armed Forces in the Indo-Pacific area of operations. The development and operation of a realistic and instrumented training environment on Tinian would enable forward-deployed U.S. Armed Forces to meet evolving operational training requirements and support U.S. training with allied nations, changes in U.S. force structure, and geographic repositioning of forces.
The Proposed Action would support land-based expeditionary warfare tactics and training within the Military Lease Area on Tinian and would accommodate land-based training for all service components of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, including the USMC, Navy, Air Force, Army, Special Operations Command, and Space Command, as well as U.S. allies and partners.
New training infrastructure would create a physical and virtual training environment to include two live-fire ranges, improvements to North Field, the development of Landing Zones, an expeditionary Base Camp at the former U.S. Agency for Global Media site, and a communications system using a combination of sensors, emitters, and communication towers. Subject to additional approvals, construction would include a biosecurity area at the Port of Tinian and an aircraft shelter at the Francisco Manglona Borja/Tinian International Airport. To ensure training unit and public safety during training, an on-island Training Area and Range Operations Command (Range Control) would be established. Range Control would schedule training and coordinate with local officials and the public.
Two training Alternatives and a No Action Alternative on Tinian are analyzed in this Revised Draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, existing land-based training at levels analyzed in existing NEPA documents for Tinian would continue (see the 2010 Mariana Islands Range Complex Final EIS/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS), 2015 Mariana Islands Training and Testing EIS/OEIS, and associated consultations and authorizations). Much of the proposed training is similar to existing training in terms of type that have been conducted on Tinian in recent decades. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would represent new training infrastructure with varying increases over existing training tempos.
Potential effects on environmental resources resulting from activities included in the two Action Alternatives and the No Action Alternative were evaluated in accordance with NEPA. Resources analyzed in this Revised Draft EIS include, but are not limited to, public access, land use and recreation, socioeconomics, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, air quality, public health and safety, utilities, and groundwater and hydrology. The Revised Draft EIS also includes an analysis of measures that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects potentially resulting from military training and construction of training infrastructure. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on these resource areas are analyzed in the Revised Draft EIS.
The USMC is coordinating and consulting with appropriate Federal agencies as required by the NHPA, Endangered Species Act, Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Air Act, and other laws and regulations as determined to be applicable to the project.
The USMC distributed the Revised Draft EIS to the CNMI government agencies, Federal Government agencies they are consulting with, and other interested persons. The Revised Draft EIS is available for public review on the project website at
1. Joeten-Kiyu Public Library, Saipan.
2. Tinian Public Library, Tinian.
3. Antonio C. Atalig Memorial Rota Public Library, Rota.
The public involvement process is helpful in identifying public concerns and local issues to be considered during the development of the EIS. The USMC encourages the public to provide substantive comments on the Proposed Action and the environmental analysis, as well as the project's potential to affect historic properties as it relates to section 106 of the NHPA. All comments received prior to the deadline of August 20, 2025 at the in-person public meetings, electronically via the project website, or mailed to the address provided in the
In-person public meetings on Tinian and Saipan will begin at approximately 5 p.m. local time; the meeting on Rota will begin at 3 p.m. local time. Informational posters will be displayed, and project team members will be available to discuss the Proposed Action and accept comments, written and oral, from the public. A Chamorro and Carolinian interpreter will be available at each of the five in-person public meetings.
Oral comments will be recorded by a stenographer. Equal weight will be given to oral and written statements.
Department of the Navy (DoN), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, DoN regulations, and Presidential Executive Order 12114, the DoN (including both the United States (U.S.) Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC)) as the lead agency, jointly with the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Coast Guard (referred to as “Action Proponents”), announce their intent to prepare a supplement to the 2015 Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS) and the 2020 MITT Supplemental EIS (SEIS)/OEIS. The MITT SEIS/OEIS will include an analysis of training activities (referred to as “training”); research, development, testing, and evaluation (referred to as “testing”) activities; and range modernization and sustainment that will be conducted in the MITT Study Area beginning in July 2027. When discussed together, these activities are referred to as “military readiness activities.”
The 45-day public scoping period begins on June 7, 2025, and ends on July 22, 2025, Chamorro Standard Time (ChST). The scoping period is extended 15 calendar days (from the usual 30-day period) to allow more time to provide comments. The DoN will host a virtual presentation and have public outreach material on the project website during the scoping period to
Comments on the scope of the SEIS/OEIS or information regarding the project's potential to affect historic properties pursuant to section 106 of the NHPA through the project website at
U.S. Pacific Fleet Command, Attention: Ms. Heather Paynter, Environmental Public Affairs Specialist, 808-471-3769,
Within the DoN, the lead action proponent is Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Additional DoN action proponents include Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, Office of Naval Research, and the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). In addition to DoN action proponents, this SEIS/OEIS includes certain activities by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, and U.S. Coast Guard when those activities are similar to Navy or USMC activities and are scheduled on DoN controlled at-sea ranges.
Proposed military readiness activities are generally consistent with those analyzed in the 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS and the 2020 MITT SEIS/OEIS and are representative of activities that the services have been conducting off Guam and around Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for decades.
The MITT Study Area (hereafter referred to as the “Study Area”) is the same Study Area used for the 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS and the 2020 MITT SEIS/OEIS analysis, which includes in-water areas within the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC), areas on the high seas to the north and west of the MIRC, a transit corridor between the MIRC and the Hawaii Range Complex, and pier side within Apra Harbor. The Study Area excludes land-based training areas located on Guam, Saipan, Tinian, and Rota that were included in the 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS. Similar to the 2020 MITT SEIS/OEIS, this action does not propose any changes to land-based activities on these islands that were analyzed in the 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS. Thus, activities on these islands are not reanalyzed in this supplement. As in the 2020 SEIS/OEIS, the only land component included in the Study Area is Farallon de Medinilla.
The Proposed Action is to continue to conduct military readiness activities within the Study Area. These activities include the use of active sonar and explosives while employing appropriate marine species protective mitigation measures.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to ensure the U.S. military services, to include the U.S. Coast Guard, can organize, train, and equip service members and personnel to meet their respective national defense missions in accordance with their Congressionally-mandated requirements
The Action Proponents have identified two preliminary action alternatives to carry forward for analysis in the SEIS/OEIS along with the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 reflects a representative year of training and testing to account for the natural fluctuation of training cycles and deployment schedules that generally limit the maximum level of training and testing occurring every year over any seven-year period. Alternative 2 reflects the maximum number of training and testing activities that could occur within a given year and assumes that the maximum level of activity would occur every year over any seven-year period. As required by NEPA for the purpose of establishing a baseline for analysis, a No Action Alternative will be evaluated which represents a scenario where no military readiness activities are conducted in the Study Area. The tempo and types of military readiness activities have fluctuated because of the introduction of new technologies, the evolving nature of international events, advances in war fighting doctrine and procedures, and changes in force structure (organization and basing of ships, submarines, aircraft, weapons, and Sailors). Such developments influence the frequency, type, duration, intensity, and location of required military readiness activities. The MITT SEIS/OEIS will reflect the current compilation of training and testing activities required to fulfill the military readiness requirements, and therefore both action alternatives include the analysis of newly proposed activities and changes to previously analyzed activities. Additionally, both action alternatives will include range modernization and sustainment necessary to support military readiness activities.
Environmental resources that are determined to be potentially affected are carried forward for full analysis. Resources to be evaluated include, but are not limited to, biological resources (including marine mammals and other protected species), sediments and water quality, air quality, noise, cultural resources, socioeconomics, and public health and safety. The Action Proponents will also analyze measures that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects. The Action Proponents will conduct all coordination and consultation activities required by the MMPA, NHPA, ESA, Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Air Act, and other laws and regulations determined to be applicable to the project. As part of this process, the DoN will seek the reissuance of authorizations under MMPA and ESA to support at-sea military readiness requirements within the Study Area beginning in July 2027.
Pursuant to NEPA, the Action Proponents invited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service to be a cooperating agency in preparation of the SEIS/OEIS.
The scoping process is helpful in identifying public concerns and local issues to be considered during the development of the SEIS/OEIS. Federal agencies, Territorial agencies, the public, and interested persons are invited to comment on the scope of the SEIS/OEIS, including identifying potential alternatives or issues that should be addressed in the NEPA analysis, relaying environmental concerns, and providing information or analysis relevant to the Proposed Action or the project's potential to affect historic properties pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA.
Scoping comments submitted via the project website or mailed to the address provided in the
After the scoping period, the Action Proponents will coordinate with participating and cooperating agencies to develop a Draft SEIS/OEIS. The Action Proponents intends to release the Draft SEIS/OEIS in the winter of 2026, release the Final SEIS/OEIS in the winter of 2027, and sign a Record of Decision following the 30-day Final SEIS/OEIS wait period.
Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of request.
The Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) (formerly the Office of Fossil Energy) of the Department of Energy (DOE), gives notice (Notice) of receipt of a request (Request), filed on May 2, 2025, by Delfin LNG LLC (Delfin). Delfin requests to amend its existing authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-free trade agreement countries set forth in DOE/FE Order No. 4028, as amended, by extending the current commencement of export operations deadline from Delfin's proposed floating LNG (FLNG) liquefaction facility (Project) to June 1, 2031. Delfin also asks that its existing authorization be amended to reflect a facility redesign that includes three FLNG vessels instead of the original four. Delfin filed its Request under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and DOE's regulations.
Protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention, as applicable, and written comments are to be filed as detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern time, July 7, 2025.
Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit filings electronically to ensure timely receipt.
On June 1, 2017, in DOE/FE Order No. 4028 (as amended)
On March 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD) issued the license, under the Deepwater Port Act (DWPA), required for Delfin to own, construct, and operate its Project.
As relevant here, Order No. 4028, as amended, requires Delfin to commence export operations from the Project no later than June 1, 2029.
Delfin also asks for an amendment “to reflect the current design of its Project in accordance with the [DWPA] license,” stating that the amendment would “reflect the refinements of Delfin's Project over time [and would] not require any change in the authorized volumes nor in any of the other Ordering Paragraphs.”
In support of its Request, Delfin states that it obtained its DWPA license from MARAD in March 2025, with a five-year construction commencement deadline but no operation commencement deadline. Delfin requests that DOE amend Order No. 4028-D to require the commencement of exports using the planned facilities no later than June 1, 2031, with a configuration of three FLNG vessels. Delfin further identifies the actions it has taken to date to proceed with the construction and operation of its Project.
Additional details can be found in the Request, posted on the DOE website at
In reviewing Delfin's Request, DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy under NGA section 3(a), DOE's regulations, and any other documents deemed appropriate.
Parties that may oppose the Request should address these issues and documents in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Request.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable, addressing the Request. Interested parties will be provided 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the
Any person wishing to become a party to this proceeding evaluating Delfin's Request must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods:
(1) Submitting the filing electronically at
(2) Mailing the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in the
(3) Hand delivering the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in the
For administrative efficiency, DOE prefers filings to be filed electronically. All filings must include a reference to “Docket No. 13-147-LNG” or “Delfin LNG LLC Request” in the title line.
The Request, and any filed protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and comments will be available electronically on the DOE website at
A decisional record on the Request will be developed through responses to this Notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Request and responses filed by parties pursuant to this Notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.
Office of Energy Jobs, Office of Policy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open virtual meeting for members and the public of the 21st Century Energy Workforce Advisory Board (EWAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, July 9, 2025; at 1:00-2 p.m. EDT.
Virtual meeting.
Angela Dayton, Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EWAB; telephone: (240) 449-0652; or email:
It is the policy of the EWAB to accept written public comments no longer than five (5) pages and to accommodate oral public comments, whenever possible. The EWAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. The public comment period for this meeting will take place on July 9, 2025, at a time specified in the meeting agenda. This public comment period is designed only for substantive commentary on the EWAB's work, not for business marketing purposes. The DFO will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The draft EIS contains staff's analysis of the applicants' proposals and the alternatives for relicensing the Turners Falls and Northfield Mountain projects. The draft EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Native-American tribes, the public, the license applicants, and Commission staff.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the draft EIS via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online 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, environmental justice communities, 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
All comments must be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 29, 2025.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this draft EIS (18 CFR 380.10). You must file your request to intervene as specified above.
In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, you are invited to attend a public comment session that will be held to receive comments on the draft EIS. Commission staff will hold two sessions for the purpose of receiving comments on the draft EIS. All interested individuals and entities will be invited to attend one or both of the sessions. The dates and times of the sessions are listed below.
The sessions will begin promptly at their respective start times listed above. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens, and you may arrive any time after the scheduled start time. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter (with Commission staff present). This format is designed to receive the maximum number of oral comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted. If you wish to speak, Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments with the court reporter, a time limit may be implemented for each commentor. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Please see the attachment to this notice for additional information on the session format and conduct.
The primary goal of these comment sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns with the draft EIS. Comments will be recorded by the court reporter and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system.
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in writing or provided orally at a public comment session. Interested parties who choose not to speak or who are unable to attend the draft EIS comment sessions may provide written comments and information to the Commission as described above.
For further information, contact Steve Kartalia at (202) 502-6131, or
On June 2, 2025, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL25-84-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C.'s Rate Schedule is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL25-84-000 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. EL25-84-000 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
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The draft EIS contains staff's analysis of the applicants' proposals and the alternatives for relicensing the Vernon, Bellows Falls, and Wilder projects. The draft EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Native-American tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Commission staff.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the draft EIS via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online 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, environmental justice communities, 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
All comments must be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 29, 2025.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this draft EIS (18 CFR 380.10). You must file your request to intervene as specified above.
In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, you are invited to attend a public comment session that will be held to receive comments on the draft EIS. Commission staff will hold two sessions for the purpose of receiving comments on the draft EIS. All interested individuals and entities will be invited to attend one or both of the sessions. The dates and times of the sessions are listed below.
The sessions will begin promptly at their respective start times listed above. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens, and you may arrive any time after the scheduled start time. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter (with Commission staff present). This format is designed to receive the maximum number of oral comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted. If you wish to speak, Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments with the court reporter, a time limit may be implemented for each commentor. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Please see the attachment to this notice for additional information on the session format and conduct.
The primary goal of these comment sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns with the draft EIS. Comments will be recorded by the court reporter and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system.
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in writing or provided orally at a public comment session. Interested parties who choose not to speak or who are unable to attend the draft EIS comment sessions may provide written comments and information to the Commission as described above.
For further information, contact Steve Kartalia at (202) 502-6131, or
On May 30, 2025, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL25-85-000 pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether Harts Mill Solar, LLC's Rate Schedule is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL25-85-000 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. EL25-85-000 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
Take notice that during the month of May 2025, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2024).
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 (
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
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community 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
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h. Potential
i.
j.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and (b) the State Historic Preservation Office, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Safe Harbor Corporation as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Safe Harbor Corporation filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD, including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review on the Commission's website (
Register online 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
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and
p.
Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings for the project to receive input on the scope of the NEPA document. We invite all interested agencies, Native American Tribes, NGOs, and the public to attend one or both meetings to assist us in identifying the scope of environmental issues that should be analyzed in the NEPA document. The dates and times of the scoping meetings are listed below.
Copies of SD1, outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list and Safe Harbor Corporation's PAD distribution list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at
Safe Harbor Corporation and Commission staff will hold an environmental site review of the Safe Harbor Project from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT, June 27, 2025. All interested individuals, agencies, Tribes, and NGOs are invited to attend. Please RSVP to Mr. Luke Anderson of Safe Harbor Corporation at
Participants will meet at 1 Powerhouse Road, Conestoga, Pennsylvania (coordinates: 39.925486, −76.389039). From River Road, turn onto Powerhouse Road and proceed 0.3 mile, passing over railroad tracks and continuing to the security gate at 0.5 mile. Safe Harbor Corporation employees at the security gate will greet and direct visitors to the meeting area. Please arrive by 8:45 a.m.
The site review will include the project powerhouse and dam from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and recreation sites (draft tube bridge fishing, Safe Harbor Park and Arboretum, and the tailrace fishing station) from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. All persons attending the environmental site review must adhere to the following requirements: (1) all persons must wear sturdy, closed-toe shoes or boots; (2) persons with open-toed shoes/sandals/flip flops/high heels, etc. will not be allowed on the environmental site review; (3) persons must be 18 years or older; (4) no photography will be allowed inside the powerhouse; (5) no weapons are allowed on-site; (6) no alcohol/drugs are allowed on-site (or persons exhibiting the effects thereof); and (7) no animals (except for service animals) are allowed on the environmental site review.
Agencies, Native American Tribes, NGOs, and individuals with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meetings and to assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the NEPA document. At the start of each meeting, Commission staff will provide a brief overview of the meeting format and objectives. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter (with Commission staff present). This format is designed to receive the maximum number of oral comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted. If you wish to speak, Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. If all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, Commission staff may conclude the meeting a half hour earlier than the scheduled time. Please see appendix C of the SD1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.
Scoping comments will be recorded by the court reporter and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system. If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit may be implemented for each commentor.
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in writing or provided orally at a scoping session. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the scoping meeting(s) to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from Safe Harbor Corporation will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
Take notice that on May 12, 2025, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, for authorization to increase the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of its Line 1655 transmission pipeline (Line 1655), located in Adams and York Counties, Pennsylvania (Line 1655 MAOP Up-Rate Project). The project will allow Columbia to increase Line 1655's MAOP from 500 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 936 psig leading to an increase
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to David A. Alonzo, Manager of Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by telephone (832) 320-5477, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 1, 2025. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before August 1, 2025. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-498-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP25-498-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: David A. Alonzo, Manager of Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Longwall Mining Panel M1 Project (Project) involving excavation, elevation, replacement, rerouting, and operation of facilities by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Greene County, Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA Process and Environmental Document section of this notice.
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 30, 2025. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on April 30, 2025, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP25-379-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
Texas Eastern provided landowners a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP25-379-000) 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, MD 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
According to Texas Eastern, the Project would allow for safe and efficient operation of its natural gas transportation system in Greene County, Pennsylvania during sub-surface longwall mining activities. Texas Eastern proposes to excavate, elevate, replace, and reroute segments of four existing pipelines ranging in length between approximately 4,000 feet and 8,500 feet near Graysville, Pennsylvania. Texas Eastern would also abandon by removal two segments of non-operational pipeline. Upon completion of the mining activities, Texas Eastern would return two of the four pipelines to their original locations and easements. One pipeline would be partially rerouted into a new easement, and another would be rerouted into the existing easement of an abandoned pipeline just north of its original location. Texas Eastern anticipates these activities would occur between 2026 and 2028.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Texas Eastern would require the temporary use of approximately 77.9 acres of land to complete the proposed activities. Following construction, Texas Eastern would permanently maintain 34.3 acres of land which includes the 31.5 acres of existing easement.
Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use and visual impacts;
• socioeconomic impacts;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff has already identified issues that deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Texas Eastern. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis:
• steep slopes;
• erosion and sediment controls;
• threatened and endangered species;
• public safety; and
• public access and road closures.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
OR
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Southeast Compression for Utility Reliability Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Gulf South Pipeline, LLC (Gulf South) in Madison Parish, Louisiana and Forrest, Hinds, and Jasper Counties, Mississippi. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the
Gulf South provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP25-219-000) 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, MD 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription, which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Gulf South proposes modifications at three existing compressor stations (Tallulah, Jasper, and Forrest) and construction of one new compressor station (Hinds) located in Madison Parish, Louisiana and Jasper, Forrest, and Hinds Counties, Mississippi, respectively. The Southeast Compression for Utility Reliability Expansion Project would increase capacity by 280,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) to serve certain southeast markets on Gulf South's system to its existing Jasper and Forrest Compressor Stations in addition to a small amount of incidental capacity, approximately 35,000 Dth/d, on an isolated portion of Gulf South's system, specifically from the Perryville area to an interconnect with Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC upstream of the Jasper Compressor Station.
The project would consist of the following modifications:
• installation of one new Solar Titan 250 compressor unit at the existing Tallulah Compressor Station;
• installation of one new Solar Mars 100 compressor unit at the existing Jasper Compressor Station;
• installation of one new Solar Titan 130 compressor unit and restaging the existing Solar Mars 100 compressor unit at the existing Forrest Compressor Station; and
• construction of one new compressor station (Hinds), including the installation of one new Solar Titan 250 compressor unit.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would impact a total of 89.43 acres of land during construction and medication activities, including 1.17 acres of operational impacts associated with access road construction and an expanding facility footprint at the Forrest Compressor Station, and 7.92 acres of permanent impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Hinds Compressor Station.
Any environmental document issued by Commission staff will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use and visual impacts;
• socioeconomic impacts;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Following the scoping period, Commission staff will determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
(1) Send an email to
OR
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (Appendix 2).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l. With this notice, we are designating BIF III Holtwood as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. BIF III Holtwood filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD, including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review on the Commission's website (
Register online 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
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on July 31, 2025.
Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings for the project to receive input on the scope of the NEPA document. We invite all interested agencies, Native American Tribes, NGOs, and the public to attend one or both meetings to assist us in identifying the scope of environmental issues that should be analyzed in the NEPA document. The dates and times of the scoping meetings are listed below.
Copies of SD1, outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list and BIF III Holtwood's PAD distribution list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at
BIF III Holtwood and Commission staff will hold an environmental site review of the Holtwood Project from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT, June 26, 2025. All interested individuals, agencies, Tribes, and NGOs are invited to attend. Please RSVP to Mr. Luke Anderson of BIF III Holtwood at
Participants will meet at 482 Old Holtwood Road, Holtwood, Pennsylvania (coordinates: 39.83239, −76.33027). Take Route 372/Holtwood Road and turn onto River Road. Continue on River Road for 0.4 mile. Turn left onto Old Holtwood Road and continue for 1.7 miles downhill to arrive at the security gate. Security will provide parking instructions inside the gated area. BIF III Holtwood employees will greet and direct visitors to the meeting area. Please arrive by 8:45 a.m.
The site review will include the project powerhouse and dam from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and recreation sites (Whitewater Boating Park, Lock 12 Historic Area, Pequea Creek Recreation Area) from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. All persons attending the environmental site review must adhere to the following requirements: (1) all persons must wear sturdy, closed-toe shoes or boots; (2) persons with open-toed shoes/sandals/flip flops/high heels, etc. will not be allowed on the environmental site
Agencies, Native American Tribes, NGOs, and individuals with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meetings and to assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the NEPA document. At the start of each meeting, Commission staff will provide a brief overview of the meeting format and objectives. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter (with Commission staff present). This format is designed to receive the maximum number of oral comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted. If you wish to speak, Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. If all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, Commission staff may conclude the meeting a half hour earlier than the scheduled time. Please see appendix C of the SD1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.
Scoping comments will be recorded by the court reporter and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system. If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit may be implemented for each commentor.
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in writing or provided orally at a scoping session. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the scoping meeting(s) to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from BIF III Holtwood will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed Cedar Vale Compressor Station Project (Cedar Vale Project) involving the construction and operation of facilities by Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star) in Osage County, Oklahoma. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
On January 7, 2025, the staff of the Office of Energy Projects issued the
This supplemental notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2025. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project which
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
Southern Star provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP25-19-000) 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.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, 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
Southern Star proposes to construct and operate a new natural gas compressor station to be known as the Cedar Vale Compressor Station in Osage County, Oklahoma. The Cedar Vale Project would facilitate the delivery of approximately 98,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to customers in Kansas and Missouri. According to Southern Star, the Cedar Vale Project is necessary to increase the capacity of its existing natural gas transmission system.
The Cedar Vale Project would consist of the following facilities:
• a new 6,091-horsepower Solar Centaur 50 turbine compressor unit;
• approximately 1,028 feet of associated piping; and
• other appurtenant facilities including vales, tanks, control systems, fencing, and security equipment.
Alternative A is approximately 8.0 miles northeast of the proposed location on the east side of 4 Acre Road/337th Road in Cowley County, Kansas. Alternative B is approximately 7.5 miles northeast of Alternative A on the west side of Road 6 in Chautauqua County, Kansas. Alternative C is approximately 2.4 miles northeast of the proposed location on the east side of Rock Creek Road in Cowley County, Kansas.
Constructing the proposed facilities would disturb about 12.23 acres of land. Following construction, Southern Star would maintain about 7.78 acres of land to operate the Cedar Vale Project. The remaining acreage would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses. Temporary and permanent land requirements for the three alternate locations would be similar to those of the proposed location.
Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• socioeconomics;
• environmental justice;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff is evaluating reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and will make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
As described in the
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
(1) Send an email to
OR
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
As announced in the February 20, 2025 Notice in this proceeding, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a Commissioner-led technical conference in the above-referenced proceeding. The two-day technical conference will take place from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 4, 2025, and 9:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 5, 2025, in the Kevin J. McIntyre Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The purpose of this technical conference is to discuss generic issues related to resource adequacy constructs, including the roles of capacity markets in the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO)/Independent System Operator (ISO) regions that utilize them and alternative constructs in RTO/ISO regions without capacity markets. The conference will start with a panel discussion on resource adequacy challenges across RTO/ISO regions, including regional differences. The remainder of the first day will include three panels specific to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) that will explore PJM's resource adequacy challenge, PJM states' perspectives, and additional perspectives on PJM's path forward. The second day will start with two panels specific to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) that will explore MISO's resource adequacy challenge and perspectives on MISO's path forward. The remainder of the second day will include one panel to explore the resource adequacy challenge in ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) and New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) and a final panel on the resource adequacy challenge in California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) and Southwest
Commission staff will post pre-filed statements submitted by panelists on the FERC technical conference web page prior to the conference and in eLibrary. With the exception of opening statements on Panel 1, which may be delivered orally, all other panels will proceed immediately to questions from the Chairman and Commissioners.
All interested persons are also invited to file pre-technical conference comments in eLibrary on the issues of the conference, including the questions listed in the attached agenda. Commenters need not answer all the questions but are encouraged to organize responses using the numbering and sequencing in the attached agenda.
The Commission does not intend to discuss at this technical conference any specific proceeding pending before the Commission, including proceedings that involve similar issues. These proceedings include, but are not limited to:
The technical conference will be open to the public. Advance registration is not required, and there is no fee for attendance. Information will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
The technical conference will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting (202-347-3700). A link to the webcast of this event will be available in the Commission Calendar of Events at
Commission technical conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact Tim Bialecki at
This panel will include opening statements from RTO/ISO representatives and a North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) representative. Panelists should focus on defining resource adequacy, identifying resource adequacy challenges across RTOs/ISOs, and identifying information that will inform and guide later discussions.
In recent years, resource retirements, load growth, and the changing resource mix have contributed to resource adequacy challenges across the nation, including in the RTO/ISO regions. According to NERC's 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, five of the six Commission jurisdictional RTO/ISO regions are at either high or elevated risk of experiencing electricity supply shortfalls.
1. What is the current state of resource adequacy across RTO/ISO regions? Is this static or variable? Are resource adequacy challenges more acute in RTO/ISO regions with capacity markets compared to those RTO/ISO regions with alternative resource adequacy constructs? Why or why not?
2. Given load growth and generation forecasts, what are your resource adequacy challenges going forward?
3. How do you reconcile your RTO's/ISO's resource adequacy objectives with state public policy requirements, which may accelerate the retirement of certain resource types or limit the entry of other resource types? For example, in light of such state public policy requirements and particularly in multi-state RTOs/ISOs, how does your RTO/ISO ensure resource adequacy?
4. What are the key drivers that cause delays in the construction and interconnection of generators in your RTO/ISO? What can be done to accelerate the interconnection of generators to help meet the resource adequacy challenge? How have factors external to your RTO/ISO, such as supply chains and siting/permitting, impacted generator interconnection timelines? What is the composition of resources in the queue? Will accelerating queue processes help address the challenge of resource adequacy? How many resources (by number and aggregate nameplate capacity) have received approval for interconnection but have not been constructed? How, if at all, are the expected resource adequacy contributions of a resource in the interconnection queue considered during the interconnection process?
5. Are there additional concerns that may affect resource adequacy in the near term (
6. In NERC's view, what aspects of resource adequacy planning could be improved? For example, what type of reliability metric (or metrics) should be used in resource adequacy planning models? What elements of resource adequacy planning can be improved or could serve as best practices?
7. How does your RTO/ISO approach capacity accreditation? What are the benefits and drawbacks of harmonizing capacity accreditation methods across regions versus allowing for regional variation?
a. Given that many regions use the same probabilistic models for both evaluating resource adequacy and/or reserve margins and for Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) accreditation, are there best practices in approaches that NERC is observing that could help align various regions across the country in using the best modeling methodologies or data sources, etc.?
b. What are the potential strengths, weaknesses, and implementation considerations of alternatives to ELCC when evaluating the contribution of various types of resources in meeting resource adequacy requirements?
8. How can the RTOs/ISOs ensure that their demand forecasts adequately take into account load growth from data centers and other large loads? How can the RTOs/ISOs ensure there is sufficient supply to meet these demands, and what will those sources of supply be?
9. How can demand flexibility and demand-side management solutions be utilized to address load growth and resource adequacy concerns?
10. How do you reflect transmission availability—both regional and interregional—in your resource
This panel discussion among the Commission, PJM, and stakeholders will focus on resource adequacy challenges specific to PJM, including whether changes to the existing market construct are needed or potential alternatives to the existing mandatory capacity market construct should be considered.
PJM states that it is facing potential capacity shortfalls as soon as the 2026/2027 Delivery Year due to a combination of trends, including growing electricity demand, rapid retirement of thermal generators, and slow entry of replacement generation.
1. What is the state of resource adequacy in PJM in the near term (
2. Going forward, what steps will PJM need to take to ensure resource adequacy? Is PJM's resource adequacy construct adequate to determine resource adequacy needs given changing circumstances (
3. How does PJM establish its load and resource forecasts?
a. Have the assumptions driving load and capacity resource forecasts changed over time? If so, how?
b. How do the forecast models weight different inputs? Are some assumptions more uncertain, important, or impactful than others?
c. How have the forecasts performed historically and are you considering any changes to forecasting models or processes? For example, are you considering requiring demonstration of commercial readiness from prospective new large load additions?
4. To what extent are barriers to entry (
5. How does PJM consider electric-gas coordination issues in the context of resource adequacy planning and capacity resource accreditation?
a. To what extent do uncertainties pertaining to natural gas fuel supplies or infrastructure constraints affect resource adequacy planning in PJM? How can PJM better address those uncertainties?
b. Does PJM need additional natural gas pipeline infrastructure for the future or is existing infrastructure sufficient?
6. To what extent does the availability of regional and interregional transmission capability affect resource adequacy planning in PJM? How can PJM better address the effect of transmission capability on resource adequacy?
7. Is the PJM capacity market adequately designed to provide correct signals for needed capacity additions? Given the degree to which the capacity market rules have changed in recent years, is the PJM capacity market producing stable investment signals? How have these frequent rule changes affected market participants and consumers? How has PJM sought to maintain stable investment signals in the face of these changes?
8. Do you think PJM's capacity market is more effective at delivering resource adequacy than other RTOs/ISOs' approaches would be in PJM and, if so, why?
9. Are there alternatives to a mandatory capacity market construct that should be considered, such as a residual capacity market construct (
10. Several states in PJM have public policy requirements that drive resource entry and exit decisions. How does PJM work with the states and the District of Columbia to identify and meet the region's resource adequacy needs at just and reasonable rates? Has PJM studied the effects of state public policy on either resource adequacy or capacity market outcomes? What are the effects of state policies on resource adequacy in PJM?
This panel discussion between the Commission and state representatives will focus on the status of resource adequacy, and the role of states in achieving resource adequacy, in PJM.
Questions that panelists could be asked:
1. What should be the allocation of roles and responsibilities between PJM and the states to ensure resource adequacy in the PJM region? Please explain the role your state takes on with regard to the procurement of capacity to
2. Is PJM's capacity market compatible with state public policy requirements? Why or why not?
3. Do you believe consumers are treated fairly in the PJM capacity market process? If so, why? If not, why not?
4. Are changes necessary to ensure that the PJM capacity market process delivers resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates?
5. What barriers, if any, are there to PJM states assuming more responsibility for resource adequacy via constructs like the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) model, a hybrid between the capacity market and IRP model, or enhanced use of self-supply mechanisms such as FRR? Should alternatives to the mandatory capacity market construct be considered or does your state prefer retaining the existing construct?
6. Does your state currently have sufficient expertise on resource adequacy mechanisms and resource adequacy modeling to meet the challenge of resource adequacy without PJM's technical expertise, or does your state need additional resources? If your state would need additional resources, what types of resources would be required and what are the benefits and costs of developing that technical expertise compared with continuing to rely on PJM's expertise? Based on those costs and benefits, would your state prefer to continue to rely on PJM's technical expertise?
7. What state mechanisms, such as long-term bilateral contracts, self-supply arrangements, or other approaches, exist to help ensure that rates for procuring resources will be just and reasonable? Will consumers have access to the information (transparency) to understand their share of the costs for procuring adequate resources?
Panelists will offer their varied perspectives on the topics discussed in the first two PJM-specific panels. Topics to be explored during this panel may include reforms to the current PJM capacity market design, potential alternatives to the existing mandatory capacity market, the roles and interests of states and other entities (
This panel discussion among the Commission, MISO, and MISO stakeholders will focus on resource adequacy challenges specific to MISO.
MISO faces the most immediate risk of falling below established resource adequacy criteria compared to all other regions assessed by NERC in its 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment.
Questions that panelists could be asked:
1. What is the state of resource adequacy in MISO in the near term (
a. Is MISO's resource adequacy construct delivering resource adequacy in MISO?
b. What are the benefits and drawbacks to MISO's resource adequacy construct and residual capacity auction?
2. How have the recent outcomes of MISO's capacity auctions affected market participants and consumers in MISO? Do states and stakeholders have confidence that the MISO capacity market will be effective to achieve resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates?
3. How have the seasonal resource adequacy requirements and revised capacity accreditation methods worked in MISO to date? Have they helped MISO more accurately determine its resource adequacy needs? What issues or challenges has MISO experienced in implementing a seasonal construct and revising capacity accreditation, and how does MISO plan to address those issues or challenges?
4. How does MISO establish its load and resource forecasts?
a. How does MISO integrate the load forecasts provided by load-serving entities and electric distribution companies into their planning reserve margin requirements? Does MISO verify the forecast methodologies and accuracy of forecasts?
b. Have the assumptions driving load and resource forecasts changed over time? If so, how?
c. How do the forecast models weight different inputs? Are some assumptions more uncertain, important, or impactful than others?
d. How have the forecasts performed historically and are parties considering any changes to forecasting models or processes? For example, are you considering requiring demonstration of commercial readiness from prospective new large load additions?
5. To what extent are barriers to entry (
6. To what extent does the availability of regional and interregional transmission capability affect resource adequacy planning in MISO? How can MISO better address the effect of transmission capability on resource adequacy?
7. Would an alternative resource adequacy construct used by another RTO/ISO be more effective at delivering resource adequacy in MISO? If so, why? Are there alternatives to the current residual market construct that should be considered?
8. What should be the allocation of roles and responsibilities between MISO and the states to ensure resource adequacy in the MISO region? How does MISO work with the states to identify and meet the region's resource adequacy needs at just and reasonable rates? Has MISO studied the effects of state public policy on either resource adequacy or capacity market outcomes?
This panel discussion among the Commission, state representatives, and others will focus on the state of resource adequacy, and the role of states in achieving resource adequacy, in MISO. The Commission will explore approaches to address MISO's resource adequacy challenges, and the benefits of and improvements to its resource adequacy construct, to ensure MISO and states achieve resource adequacy.
1. How do MISO and state resource adequacy processes interact? Do states in MISO have appropriate opportunities to participate in decisions regarding resource adequacy? Are there different or greater responsibilities that states should assume to ensure resource adequacy?
2. Do you believe consumers are treated fairly in the MISO capacity market process? If so, why? If not, why not?
3. Are changes necessary to ensure that the MISO capacity market process delivers resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates?
4. Are there aspects of MISO's resource adequacy construct that may result in inefficient price signals or create unnecessary resource adequacy risks?
5. Could MISO ensure resource adequacy at a lower cost to consumers through modifications to its existing resource adequacy construct? If so, what are the modifications and what are the challenges or downsides to implementing them?
6. Should MISO's capacity market model be replaced?
a. If MISO's capacity market model should be replaced, what should replace it? Could an alternative resource adequacy program, like in SPP and CAISO, or a more expansive capacity market construct, like in PJM, NYISO, and ISO-NE, achieve resource adequacy at a lower cost than MISO's resource adequacy construct? Would these alternative approaches provide load-serving entities, states, and consumer advocates with the necessary information to monitor their costs for capacity?
b. What are the potential tradeoffs and challenges of switching to a different resource adequacy construct? What timeline would be needed to determine or vet a replacement and implement it?
This panel discussion between the Commission, NYISO, ISO-NE, and relevant stakeholders will focus on resource adequacy challenges specific to NYISO and ISO-NE.
NYISO projects declining statewide resource margins and for the system to approach a loss of load expectation of 1 day in 10 years by 2034.
ISO-NE, in comparison, states that it has procured or will procure the requisite resources needed to adequately meet resource adequacy for each year of the 2024-2028 study horizon.
1. What is the state of resource adequacy in NYISO and ISO-NE in the near term (
a. What factors present the greatest uncertainty when projecting future resource adequacy challenges?
b. Are the capacity market constructs delivering resource adequacy in these RTOs/ISOs? Why or why not?
2. To what extent do uncertainties external to NYISO and ISO-NE—such as natural gas supplies or infrastructure constraints, supply chain limitations, and siting and permitting delays—affect resource adequacy planning in the Northeast? How can NYISO and ISO-NE better address those uncertainties?
3. How do NYISO and ISO-NE consider electric-gas coordination issues in the context of resource adequacy planning and capacity resource accreditation?
4. How will state public policy requirements change the resource mix and expected seasonal or hourly demand patterns? Do state public policy requirements create challenges for your regions in achieving resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates?
5. How might your capacity markets be improved to meet the challenge of resource adequacy?
6. Would an alternative resource adequacy construct used by another RTO/ISO be more effective at delivering resource adequacy in your regions? If so, why?
7. How do NYISO and ISO-NE work with their states to identify and meet the region's resource adequacy needs and to ensure adequate resources are procured at just and reasonable rates? How do NYISO and ISO-NE work with their states when pursuing capacity market reforms to meet the resource adequacy challenge at the lowest possible cost to consumers? What distinct challenges must be overcome in a multi-state RTO/ISO (ISO-NE) region relative to a single state ISO region (NYISO)?
This panel discussion between the Commission, SPP, CAISO, and relevant stakeholders will focus on resource adequacy programs in SPP and CAISO and how they compare to capacity markets in the other RTOs/ISOs.
In SPP, where each Load Responsible Entity must maintain adequate capacity to meet its Resource Adequacy Requirement, SPP expects no excess capacity to be available in summer 2027, and the planned reserve margin to decline from 20% in summer 2024 to just 5% in summer 2029—a 5,950 MW deficiency.
In California, the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) oversees a resource adequacy construct to ensure jurisdictional load-serving entities meet those requirements. The CPUC sets system-wide resource adequacy requirements while CAISO sets local and flexible resource adequacy requirements. In recent years, CAISO and the CPUC have implemented regulatory and CAISO market changes to ensure that external capacity resources procured to meet resource adequacy requirements are delivered during peak net load hours.
1. What is the state of resource adequacy in SPP and CAISO in the near term (
2. Given load growth and generation entry and retirement forecasts, what resource adequacy challenges does SPP's resource adequacy construct face going forward? How does SPP's resource adequacy construct perform compared to RTO/ISO-administered capacity markets?
3. Given load growth and generation entry and retirement forecasts, what resource adequacy challenges does the CPUC's Resource Adequacy program face going forward? How does California's Resource Adequacy program perform compared to RTO/ISO-administered capacity markets?
4. How do the resource adequacy constructs employed by your RTO/ISO ensure the availability of resources for resource adequacy, and can they adapt to increased load growth? How does this compare to attempting to meet these challenges through operation of an RTO/ISO-administered capacity market?
5. How do SPP and CAISO work with states to identify and meet the region's resource adequacy needs and to ensure adequate resources are procured at just and reasonable rates? How do SPP and CAISO work with their states when pursuing resource adequacy reforms to meet the resource adequacy challenge at the lowest possible cost to consumers? What distinct challenges must be overcome in a multi-state RTO/ISO (SPP) region relative to a single state ISO region (CAISO)?
• Casey Cathey, SPP, Vice President of Engineering
• Neil Millar, CAISO, Vice President of Transmission Planning and Infrastructure Development
• Chair Patrick O'Connell, New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
• Molly Sterkel, California Public Utilities Commission, Director of Electric Supply, Planning and Costs in the Energy Division
• Stacey Burbure, American Electric Power, Senior Vice President of Transmission Business Development and Joint Ventures
• Gillian Clegg, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Vice President of Energy Policy and Procurement
• Travis Kavulla, NRG, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
The 107-foot-long Tainter gate section of Phoenix Dam abuts Lock Island, which is a non-project feature that spans approximately 150 feet of the Oswego River. In addition, a non-project lock, known as the Phoenix Lock, spans approximately 45 feet of the Oswego River between Lock Island and the east shoreline of the Oswego River. Together, the Phoenix Dam, Lock Island, and Phoenix Lock create an impoundment that has a surface area of approximately 1,400 acres at 362.42 feet NAVD 88.
From the impoundment, water flows through the trashrack to a forebay, and then through the powerhouse. Water is discharged from the turbines to an approximately 120-foot-long tailrace that discharges to the Oswego River.
The project includes a trap and transport facility for the upstream passage of American eel, including an eel ramp and eel collection box located approximately 160 feet downstream of the project dam on the west shoreline of the Oswego River. The project also includes a downstream fishway that consists of the 7-foot-long sluice gate and a 4.8-foot-deep concrete plunge pool. Additionally, the project includes an aluminum walkway that provides access to the 206-foot-long Tainter gate section of the dam.
The project generators are connected to the regional electric grid by a 4.16/34.5-kilovolt (kV) step-up transformer and a 230-foot-long, 34.5-kV underground transmission line. There are no project recreation facilities.
The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities of the powerhouse are 500 and 4,580 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The average annual energy production of the project from 2016 through 2023 was 10,518 megawatt-hours.
The current license requires Oswego Hydro to operate the project in a run-of-river mode and maintain a maximum impoundment surface elevation of 362.42 feet NAVD88. Oswego Hydro currently maintains the surface elevation of the impoundment between 361.92 feet and 362.42 feet NAVD 88. The current license also requires Oswego Hydro to: (1) release a year-round minimum flow of 300 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, to the Oswego River downstream of the project; and (2) when inflow is less than 1,900 cfs from June 1 through October 31, monitor water quality and, if average tailwater dissolved oxygen drops below 5 milligrams per liter, provide mitigative flow releases for the protection of downstream water quality. Oswego Hydro provides upstream eel passage from June through October, using the trap and transport facility, and provides downstream fish passage year-round using the downstream fishway.
Oswego Hydro proposes to continue operating the project in a run-of-river mode and maintaining the surface
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
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
You may also register online at
n.
o.
p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 2, 2025.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has adopted the Fish and Wildlife Service's Final EIS No. 20240119 filed 06/28/2024 with the Environmental Protection Agency. The APHIS was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, republication of the document is not necessary.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has adopted the Fish and Wildlife Service's Final EIS No. 20250006 filed 01/02/2025 with the Environmental Protection Agency. The NMFS was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, republication of the document is not necessary.
Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FHWA has issued a single document that consists of a final environmental impact statement and record of decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not apply to this action.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2025.
Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Kara Monahan (202-326-2018), Health Care Division, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule § 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of 30 days. The following Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC website at this web address:
The public is invited to submit comments on this document. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 7, 2025. Write “Synopsys and ANSYS; File No. 241 0059” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
Because of the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be delayed. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule § 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted for public comment, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) and ANSYS, Inc. (“Ansys”) (collectively, “Respondents”) that is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects that may result from Synopsys' acquisition of Ansys. Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated January 15, 2024, Synopsys proposes to acquire Ansys in a transaction valued at approximately $35 billion (the “Proposed Acquisition”). The Commission alleges in its Complaint that the Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in the following markets: (1) optical software tools; (2) photonic software tools for the design and simulation of photonic devices; and (3) Register Transfer Level (“RTL”) power consumption analysis tools. The Consent Agreement will remedy the alleged violations by preserving the
Under the terms of the proposed Decision and Order (“Order”), Respondents are required to divest (1) Synopsys' optics and photonics design products, which includes Synopsys' optical software products and photonic software products for the design and simulation of photonic devices, related assets, and facilities in California, New York, France, and Germany; and (2) Ansys' RTL power consumption analysis product, PowerArtist, along with all associated assets necessary to compete in the market. The Commission and Respondents have agreed to an Order to Maintain Assets that requires Respondents to operate and maintain all divestiture assets in the normal course of business until the assets are ultimately divested. The Commission issued the Order to Maintain Assets as final.
The Commission has placed the Consent Agreement, along with the proposed Order and the Order to Maintain Assets, on the public record for thirty days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the proposed Order, along with the comments received, to make a final decision as to whether it should withdraw, modify, or make final the proposed Order. The Commission is issuing the Order to Maintain Assets when the Consent Agreement is placed on the public record.
Respondent Synopsys is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware with its executive offices and principal place of business located at 675 Almanor Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94085. Synopsys is a leading developer and supplier of Electronic Design Automation (“EDA”) software principally used to design semiconductors, including integrated circuits and systems-on-chips.
Respondent Ansys is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware with its executive offices and principal place of business located at 2600 ANSYS Drive, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317. Ansys is a leading provider of Simulation and Analysis (“S&A”) software tools, which model physical effects for an array of products, including semiconductors.
The Proposed Acquisition raises competitive concerns in markets for optical software tools, photonic software tools for designing and simulating photonic devices, and RTL power consumption analysis tools.
Optical software tools are S&A software products that enable engineers to design and simulate optical devices. Optical devices generate, reflect, or refract light, and include LED screens, mirrors, and lenses. Photonic software tools for the design and simulation of photonic devices are S&A software products that enable engineers to design and simulate photonic devices. Photonic devices are those that use photons as a signal to transmit information. Relevant photonic applications include fiber optic cables, LiDAR technology, and solar panels. Synopsys competes in these markets with its optical software tools Code V, LightTools, LucidShape, and ImSym, and its photonic software tool RSoft. Ansys competes in these markets with its optical software tools Zemax and SPEOS and its photonic software tool Lumerical.
RTL power consumption analysis tools are EDA software products used to measure and optimize the power consumption of digital chips at an early stage of the design flow known as Register Transfer Level design. Chip designers value the ability to obtain early readings of a chip's power consumption through RTL power consumption analysis. Other EDA tools cannot perform RTL power consumption analysis. Ansys offers an RTL power consumption analysis tool called PowerArtist, while Synopsys competes with a tool called PrimePower-RTL.
The relevant geographic area in which the Proposed Acquisition may substantially lessen competition in all three markets is global. The major suppliers of optical software tools, photonic software tools for designing and simulating photonic devices, and RTL power consumption analysis tools license those tools in substantially the same form to customers worldwide. All three global markets are highly concentrated, with Respondents holding the largest and second-largest share in each market.
The Proposed Acquisition will eliminate substantial head-to-head competition between Synopsys and Ansys in each of the three relevant markets. In the market for optical software tools, customers view Respondents' tools as their only two options, and the Proposed Acquisition would leave a single firm with the ability to set prices in the market. In the market for photonics software tools used for design and simulation of photonic devices, Respondents closely monitor each other's tools and compete against each other to win customers. In the RTL power consumption analysis market, Respondents similarly recognize each other's tools as their closest competitors and have innovated in response to that competition. By removing the competitive constraint that Respondents face from direct competition in each of the relevant markets, the Proposed Acquisition is likely to result in higher prices and decreased innovation to the detriment of customers.
Entry into the three markets at issue would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the Proposed Acquisition. Developing EDA and S&A software tools is capital-intensive, requiring significant time, technical expertise, and investment in research and development. In addition, customers face high switching costs and tend to keep the same tools in their design flows for long periods.
The proposed Order and the Order to Maintain Assets (collectively, “Orders”) effectively remedy the competitive concerns raised by the Proposed Acquisition in each of the three relevant product markets. Pursuant to the proposed Order, the parties are required to divest Synopsys' optical software products and assets and photonic software products and assets aiding the design and simulation of photonic devices, as well as Ansys' PowerArtist product and assets, including certain real property interests, intellectual property, contracts, business information, and intangible rights and property to Keysight Technologies, Inc. (“Keysight”). The parties must accomplish these divestitures no later than 10 days after Synopsys consummates the Proposed Acquisition. The proposed Order allows the Commission to appoint a monitor to oversee the implementation of the Orders and a divestiture trustee in the event the parties fail to divest the products.
Keysight appears to be a suitable purchaser with experience acquiring and improving technological assets. It is financially sound and well positioned to integrate the divestiture assets quickly
The proposed Order contains several provisions to help ensure that the divestitures are successful. The proposed Order requires Respondents Synopsys and Ansys to provide transition services to Keysight as it integrates the divestiture assets to enable Keysight to operate similarly to how the Respondents operated. The proposed Order requires Respondents to operate and maintain the divestiture assets in the ordinary course of business consistent with past practices until such assets are fully transferred to Keysight. For assets that cannot be fully divested, including certain intellectual property and a limited number of customer contracts, the proposed Order provides protections to ensure Keysight can operate the business independent of the Respondents. The proposed Order also protects the confidential information of the divestiture assets. These safeguards include limiting the purposes for which Respondents may use such confidential information and the employees to whom the information may be disclosed.
The proposed Order contains certain provisions to facilitate that the employees most familiar with the divestiture businesses move to Keysight, such as requiring that Respondents for one year facilitate Keysight's hiring of relevant employees of the Respondents' divisions responsible for the divestiture assets. The proposed Order similarly creates a three-year prohibition on Respondents soliciting employees who moved to Keysight to work in the divestiture businesses. With certain limited exceptions, it also prohibits Respondents from enforcing noncompete or non-solicit provisions or agreements against employees who seek or obtain a position at Keysight working on the divestiture businesses.
Under the proposed Order, the Commission appoints a Monitor to ensure that Synopsys complies with its obligations under the Orders and to report to the Commission regarding the same. The Commission appoints S&W Partners LLP (formerly known as Evelyn Partners LLP) as the Monitor. Among the individuals from S&W Partners who will comprise the Monitor team is the head of the firm's Monitoring Trustee Services practice with experience overseeing merger remedies. The monitor team has prior monitoring experience in Commission-ordered divestitures.
In addition to requiring divestitures, the proposed Order prohibits Synopsys from reacquiring any of the divestiture assets for ten years. The proposed Order also includes provisions designed to ensure the effectiveness of the relief, including requirements that the Respondents report on how they are complying with the Order, submit compliance reports, maintain specific written communications, and grant representatives of the Commission access to information and personnel for purposes of determining compliance with the Order.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement and proposed Order to aid the Commission in determining whether it should make the proposed Order final. This analysis is not an official interpretation of the proposed Order and does not modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Today, the Commission unanimously authorizes the filing of an administrative complaint and proposed decision and order requiring Synopsys, Inc. and Ansys, Inc. to divest several lines of business, and publishes that order for public comment.
Competition makes the American economy great. It promotes economic freedom by preventing barriers to new businesses and new ideas. It breeds entrepreneurialism and innovation. The American entrepreneurial spirit is what sets our economy apart from the rest of the world. America is an engine of innovation in no small part because our economy is built on competition—on the drive to create and build better than your opponent in order to convince consumers to buy your product or service, rather than those of your competitor.
The Federal Trade Commission's mandate is to promote economic freedom, innovation, and dynamism by protecting competition. One of the Commission's most vital tasks in protecting competition is to guard against anticompetitive mergers. The danger that mergers and acquisitions could pose to a healthy business environment is obvious. For example, if two rival companies were to merge, the intensity of competition in that market may diminish. With fewer competitors and less competitive pressure, consumers may suffer. Prices may increase. Product quality may decline as firms feel less pressure to maintain the same standard of their products or services in order to win over consumers. The rate of innovation may diminish as companies feel less pressure to develop new products or industrial techniques to improve their product offerings. Consumers may have fewer choices in a market with fewer companies fighting to win their business. And by reducing the number of buyers of labor in a given market, mergers can undermine labor competition and injure American workers too. Safeguarding the markets from mergers that “may . . . substantially . . . lessen competition, or . . . tend to create a monopoly,”
But for all these possibilities, the Commission must not reflexively oppose mergers and acquisitions. Innovation does not occur randomly. New ideas do not appear in the market on their own. Taking an idea from its inception to a product offering requires capital, and lots of it. Innovation and competition therefore require healthy capital markets. Upstarts cannot take on dominant incumbents without tremendous resources. And investors will not contribute these resources if they cannot realize a return on that investment.
Mergers and acquisitions are a critical way in which capital fuels innovation because they are part of how investors realize returns on their investments.
But the Commission does not implement industrial policy. It is not a central planner. It is a cop on the beat. When it sees a violation of the competition laws, it blows the whistle and takes the offending businesses to court. When a merger would not violate the antitrust laws, the Commission must get out of the way quickly to avoid bogging down innovation and interfering with the forces of a free and competitive market.
The Commission has a single tool to prevent anticompetitive mergers: litigation to block the merger's consummation.
Second, settlement maximizes the Commission's finite enforcement resources. Antitrust litigation is expensive.
In antitrust parlance, a settlement in a merger case is called a “remedy” because it is supposed to remedy a merger's anticompetitive effects.
The Biden FTC expressed hostility to settlements in merger cases. The former Chairwoman said that the FTC should focus on litigating to block
I am sympathetic to this view. In the past, the Commission became too comfortable with behavioral remedies that were difficult or impossible to enforce.
Nevertheless, remedies must be an option for the FTC as it fulfills its mission of protecting competition. First, for all of the Biden FTC's hostile rhetoric against merger settlements, it accepted them in lieu of suing—and it did so even after 2022, when it publicly expressed hostility toward such remedies.
Second, a categorical refusal to consider settlement complicates subsequent litigation. If the Commission simply disregards proposed settlements that would have addressed a merger's competition problems, nothing stops the parties from presenting that settlement as a remedy to the court during litigation.
Finally, categorically refusing to settle merger cases diminishes the effect of the FTC's finite enforcement resources. As already noted, litigating antitrust cases is expensive—in terms of the costs the Commission must bear for experts and other costs related to discovery and trial, but also in terms of staff's time. Such litigation can tie up staff for six to eight months or even longer.
Although I believe the Trump FTC must be open to settling merger cases, I am clear-eyed about the dangers of inadequate or unworkable settlements. The object of settlement is to protect competition as fully as would successful litigation without the expense and risk of litigation. It is not to paper over an anticompetitive transaction. Accordingly, I believe that the Commission should accept settlements in merger cases only when it is confident that the settlement will protect competition in the relevant market to the same extent that successful litigation would. Specifically, experience teaches that behavioral remedies should be treated with substantial caution. They are often difficult or impossible for the Commission to enforce effectively and can lock the Commission into the status of a monitor for individual firms rather than a guardian of competition across the entire economy. They are therefore disfavored.
Nor should the Commission ordinarily accept a structural remedy unless it involves the sale of a standalone or discrete business, or something very close to it, along with all tangible and intangible assets necessary (1) to make that line of business viable, (2) to give the divestiture buyer the incentive and ability to compete vigorously against the merged firm, and (3) to eliminate to the to the extent possible any ongoing entanglements between the divested business and the merged firm. The Commission must also be confident that the divestiture buyer has the resources and experience necessary to make that standalone business competitive in the market. Unless these conditions obtain, the Commission should proceed to litigation. When confronted with an anticompetitive merger, I will favor litigation to guarantee that competition will be protected rather than accepting an uncertain settlement.
Today's settlement satisfies these requirements. Staff conducted a thorough investigation and identified substantial anticompetitive effects likely to flow from the proposed transaction across three relevant markets.
The upshot of today's Commission action for the American people and business community is that the Commission is willing to consider settlements in merger cases. But it must do so consistently with its mission to protect competition to the fullest extent possible, maximizing its resources, and in light of the lessons learned from remedies of the past. If the Commission is confident that a settlement will prevent a substantial lessening of competition as fully as would litigation, while sparing the Commission and the American people the expense and uncertainty of litigation, then it should accept that settlement.
But the Commission's standards for evaluating remedies should be exacting, and its strong preference should be for structural remedies over conduct remedies. The Commission must learn the lessons of unsuccessful past remedies and avoid returning to an era when it sometimes accepted weak remedies in lieu of the hard work of litigating to protect competition. Learning from the past, the Trump FTC should err in favor of litigating to protect competition where it believes it can prevail, rather than accepting a questionable settlement. But I am confident that accepting sound remedies in the right cases will allow the Commission to support a strong American economy that promotes human flourishing through competition and economic freedom.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Hernia Mesh—Package Labeling Recommendations.” This draft guidance provides labeling recommendations for hernia mesh devices that are intended to help promote the safe and effective use of hernia mesh. This draft guidance is not final nor is it for implementation at this time.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 5, 2025 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Nils Potter, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7130.
Hernia meshes represent a diverse group of medical devices intended for hernia repair in different anatomic regions and featuring a wide variety of physical and mechanical properties. The range of hernia mesh characteristics and properties can make it challenging, even for experienced healthcare providers, to choose the most appropriate hernia mesh for a given patient, while also taking into consideration patient-specific factors and surgical approach. Since January 1, 2019, FDA has received over 86,000 adverse event reports related to hernia mesh. The package labeling recommendations in this draft guidance are intended to help promote the safe and effective use of hernia mesh. In particular, the package labeling recommendations may provide for a more consistent format for disseminating certain clinically relevant information, making it easier for healthcare providers to find certain information needed to use these devices safely and for the purposes for which they are intended.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on Hernia Mesh—Package Labeling Recommendations. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
As we develop any final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on the applicability of Executive Order 14192, per OMB guidance M-25-20, and in particular, on any costs or cost savings.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by
While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in the following table have been approved by OMB:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the revised draft technical specification entitled “M11 Technical Specification: Clinical Electronic Structured Harmonised Protocol (CeSHarP)” and a supplemental document entitled “M11 Template.” The revised draft technical specification and template were prepared under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The revised draft technical specification recommends the use of an open, nonproprietary standard to enable electronic exchange of clinical protocol information. The template identifies headers, common text, and a set of data fields and terminologies that will be the basis for efficiencies in data exchange. These ICH documents create an international standard for the content and exchange of clinical trial protocol information facilitating review and assessment by regulators, sponsors, ethical oversight bodies, investigators, and other stakeholders. This revised draft technical specification and updated template revise and replace the draft versions of the same titles issued in December 2022.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 7, 2025 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
FDA is announcing the availability of the revised draft technical specification entitled “M11 Technical Specification: Clinical Electronic Structured Harmonised Protocol (CeSHarP)” and a supplemental document entitled “M11 Template.” The revised draft technical specification and template were prepared under the auspices of ICH. ICH seeks to achieve greater regulatory harmonization worldwide to ensure that safe, effective, high-quality medicines are developed, registered, and maintained in the most resource-efficient manner. By harmonizing the regulatory requirements in regions around the world, ICH guidelines enhance global drug development, improve manufacturing standards, and increase the availability of medications. For example, ICH guidelines have substantially reduced duplicative clinical studies, prevented unnecessary animal studies, standardized the reporting of important safety information, and standardized marketing application submissions.
The six Founding Members of the ICH are the FDA; the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; and the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. The Standing Members of the ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. ICH membership continues to expand to include other regulatory authorities and industry associations from around the world (refer to
ICH works by engaging global regulatory and industry experts in a detailed, science-based, and consensus-driven process that results in the development of ICH guidelines. The regulators around the world are committed to consistently adopting these consensus-based guidelines, realizing the benefits for patients and for industry.
As a Founding Regulatory Member of ICH, FDA plays a major role in the development of each of the ICH guidelines, which FDA then adopts and issues as guidance for industry. FDA's guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, they describe the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited.
In March 2025, the ICH Assembly endorsed the revised draft technical specification entitled “M11 Technical Specification: Clinical Electronic Structured Harmonised Protocol (CeSHarP)” and a supplemental document entitled “M11 Template” and agreed that the materials should be made available for public comment. The revised draft technical specification and template are the products of the Multidisciplinary Expert Working Group of the ICH. To support the review and public comment on the completed technical specification, the updated template is being provided as a reference document to aid in the review and understanding of the technical specification, but FDA is not seeking comment on the template. Comments about the technical specification will be considered by FDA and the Multidisciplinary Expert Working Group.
This technical specification revises the draft technical specification entitled “M11 Technical Specification: Clinical Electronic Structured Harmonised Protocol (CeSHarP)” and the supplemental document entitled “M11 Template” that were issued on December 22, 2022 (87 FR 78696), along with the draft guidance for industry entitled “M11 Clinical Electronic Structured Harmonised Protocol (CeSHarP)” (available at
The technical specification recommends the use of an open, nonproprietary standard to enable electronic exchange of clinical protocol information. Revisions to the technical specification include cardinality, definitions, and terminology alignment, reflecting both prior public feedback and expert working group discussions. The template's structure and content provide a framework for relevant stakeholders to develop, review and use protocols that consistently and unambiguously include a uniform table of contents, common section headers and content, as well as common terminologies. Revisions to the template include the table of contents, instructions, content, and specifications for universal and optional text, reflection both prior public feedback and expert working group discussions. The intent of the draft guidance for industry and these supporting documents is to create an international standard for the content and exchange of clinical trial protocol information facilitating review and assessment by regulators, sponsors, ethical oversight
The revised draft technical specification and template have been left in the original ICH format. The final technical specification and template will be reformatted and edited to conform with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115) and style before publication. The technical specification and template, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the topics they address. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. As we develop any final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on the applicability of Executive Order 14192, per OMB guidance M-25-20, and in particular, on any costs or cost savings.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 pertaining to clinical trial design and protocols have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance, template, and technical specification at
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Fellowships: Sensory and Motor Neurosciences, Cognition and Perception June 30, 2025, 09:30 a.m. to July 01, 2025, 07:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the date from June 30, 2025-July 1, 2025, to July 29-July 30, 2025. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDDK.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications conducted by the National Institute Of Diabetes And Digestive And Kidney Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Pregnancy and Neonatology Study Section, June 26, 2025, 09:00 a.m. to June 27, 2025, 08:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the contact person from Andrew M. Wolfe to Anthony Chan, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9392,
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is open public. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Tribal Institutional Review Board Establishment and Enhancement (TIRBEE) Award (R24), July 01, 2025, 10:00 a.m. to July 01, 2025, 6:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 which was published in the
This meeting has been transferred from National Cancer Institute to Center for Scientific Review.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate's (OFIA) Ask the Advocate web form and the removal of two instruments that are no longer needed.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 5, 2025.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit comments at
All submissions received must include the Agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used to submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Joe Cecil, Advocate Representative Team Lead, Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate, National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency, at (202) 701-3465 or
Section 24 of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-89, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4033), requires FEMA to designate a Flood Insurance Advocate that would advocate for the fair treatment of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policyholders and property owners by: (1) providing education and guidance on all aspects of the NFIP, (2) identifying trends affecting the public, and (3) making recommendations for NFIP program improvements to FEMA leadership. Pursuant to this authority, FEMA established the OFIA on December 22, 2014.
Members of the public regularly contact OFIA seeking assistance on the NFIP. OFIA seeks to facilitate the timely and effective management of these inquiries by using a web form on OFIA's web page at
The Federal Insurance Directorate determined the Mortgage Portfolio Protection Program (MPPP) form is no longer necessary due to the implementation of Risk Rating 2.0 and therefore will not be renewed under this effort. This revision removes both the Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement Notice of Acceptance and MPPP Agreement Receipt for Materials instruments from this information collection, as they are no longer needed. This revision also corrects a technical error within ROCIS that inflates the burden imposed by the remaining FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-121, Ask the Advocate Web Form.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Through this notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is terminating the designation of Nepal for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The designation of Nepal is set to expire on June 24, 2025. After reviewing country conditions and consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that Nepal no longer continues to meet the conditions for its designation for TPS. The Secretary therefore is terminating the TPS designation of Nepal as required by statute. This termination is effective August 5, 2025. After August 5, 2025, nationals of Nepal (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nepal) who have been granted TPS under Nepal's designation will no longer have TPS.
The designation of Nepal for TPS is terminated effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on August 5, 2025.
Humanitarian Affairs Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, telephone (240) 721-3000 (not a toll-free call).
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a foreign state's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, must review the conditions in the foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether they continue to meet the conditions for the TPS designation.
TPS is a temporary immigration benefit granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the INA, or to eligible aliens without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country. During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to work and obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS. TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion. The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to lawful permanent resident status or any other immigration status. To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2) in
Nepal was initially designated for TPS on June 24, 2015 for a period of 18 months, based on an earthquake that a former Secretary determined resulted in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions.
TPS Beneficiaries from Nepal retained TPS, provided that an alien's TPS status was not withdrawn because of ineligibility.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a country's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, must review the conditions in a foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions for the TPS designation continue to be met.
Consistent with INA section 244(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A), after consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary reviewed conditions in Nepal and considered whether Nepal continues to meet the conditions for designation under INA section 244(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254(b)(1)(B). The Secretary specifically considered: (1) whether there continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in the areas affected,
Based on her review and consultation with the Department of State, the Secretary determined that, overall, there are notable improvements in environmental disaster preparedness and response capacity, as well as substantial reconstruction from the earthquake's destruction such that there is no longer a disruption of living conditions and Nepal is able to handle adequately the return of its nationals.
The Secretary has determined the conditions supporting Nepal's June 24, 2015, designation for TPS on the basis of the earthquake are no longer met. The recovery efforts of the Nepalese
Though Nepal has continued to experience subsequent regional environmental events, including flooding and landslides, the government has made improvements to its preparedness and response capacity. Similar progress has been made in building disaster-resilient housing, infrastructure, and community systems, thus creating a safer and more stable environment for returnees.
Conditions in Nepal have improved in several areas relevant to the affected living conditions and Nepal's ability to handle the return of its nationals. Though Nepal remains one of the poorest countries in the world, its gross domestic product grew two percent from Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 to FY 2024.
Additionally, Nepal has been regularly accepting the return of its nationals with final removal orders over the last five years. DHS estimates that there are approximately 12,700 nationals of Nepal (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nepal) who hold TPS under Nepal's designation. Of those, approximately 5,500 have become lawful permanent residents of the United States.
The TPS statute provides that the termination of a country's TPS designation may not be effective earlier than 60 days after the FRN is published or, if later, the expiration of the most recent previous extension.
The Secretary may determine the appropriate effective date of the termination and the expiration of any TPS-related documentation, such as EADs, for the purpose of providing for an orderly transition.
The Secretary has considered whether there are any putative reliance interests in the Nepal TPS designation, especially when considering whether to allow for an additional transition period akin to that allowed under certain previous TPS terminations, including that for Nepal.
However, DHS recognizes that TPS Nepal beneficiaries continue to be employment authorized during the 60-day transition period.
By the authority vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security under INA section 244(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3), and in consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government, I have reviewed conditions in Nepal and considered (a) whether there continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in the areas affected in Nepal, and (b) whether the state of Nepal is unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return to Nepal of its nationals. Based on my review, I have determined that Nepal no longer continues to meet the conditions for the designation for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under INA section 244(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B).
Accordingly, I order as follows:
(1) Pursuant to INA section 244(b)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(B), and considering INA section 244(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(d)(3), the designation of Nepal for TPS is terminated effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on August 5, 2025.
(2) Information concerning the termination of TPS for nationals of Nepal (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nepal) will be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this notice and through the USCIS Contact Center at 1-800-375-5283. This information will be published on the USCIS website at
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Holly A. Kelly, Director, Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development (ORHED), 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, Clearance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
Section 247 requires that the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) of the State of Hawaii (a) be a co-mortgagor; (b) guarantees, or reimburses the Secretary for any mortgage insurance claim paid in connection with a property located on Hawaiian Home Lands; or (c) offers other security acceptable to the Secretary. There are no changes to the program for this submission.
Under the State of Hawaii, the DHHL is responsible for management of Hawaiian Home Lands for the benefit of native Hawaiians. The DHHL determines that the mortgagor meets its eligibility requirement as a native Hawaiian.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, Clearance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, Clearance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), invite public comment on applications for permits to conduct certain activities involving marine mammals for which the Service has jurisdiction under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In addition, we announce permits that we have issued recently in response to prior applications.
We must receive comments on the new permit applications by July 7, 2025.
•
•
•
•
For more information, see Public Comment Procedures under
Katrina Liebich, via email at
With some exceptions, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Section 104(c) of the MMPA specifies the conditions for authorizing the taking or importation of a marine mammal for purposes of scientific research, public display, or enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock under the MMPA.
This notice provides information about two aspects of the MMPA permitting process: application and issuance. In section II, we provide the public with notice of and the opportunity to comment on applications that we have received from entities or individuals to conduct certain activities with marine mammals for which the Service has jurisdiction under the MMPA. In section III, we announce recently issued MMPA permits to entities or individuals in response to prior applications.
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 104(c) of the MMPA, we invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on the applications listed below before final action is taken. Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
We invite comments on the following applications:
The applicant requests a modification to their scientific research permit to test methods for a new immobilization protocol for Pacific walruses (
The applicant requests a renewal and modification of their scientific research permit to conduct scientific research on polar bears (
The applicant requests a scientific research permit to conduct a study on polar bear (
Before issuing any requested permit, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods in
When submitting comments, please specify the name of the applicant and the permit number at the beginning of your comment. Provide sufficient information to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (a) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (b) those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.
You may view public comments at
If you submit a comment at
After the comment period closes, we will make decisions regarding permit issuance. If we issue permits to any of the applicants listed above in this notice, we will publish a subsequent notice in the
We have issued permits to conduct certain activities involving marine mammals and marine mammal products in response to prior permit applications that we received. This notice informs the public that the Service has issued the permits listed in table 1 below.
The permittees' original permit application materials, along with public comments we received during public comment periods for the applications, are available for review. To locate the application materials and received comments, go to
We issue this notice under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments. To be considered, your comments must be received on or before July 7, 2025.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Cheryl A. Dieter by email at
In accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The information also supports regional and national water-availability studies in the United States. The USGS has produced estimates of annual water use by category aggregated at the county and State levels every 5 years since 1950. For 2020, models will be used to produce the estimates, and they will be made at a higher temporal and spatial resolution than previous years' estimates. Model estimates are dependent on validation using the data collected nationally for specific water-use facilities. USGS water-use specialists will request reported water-use data annually from non-Federal agencies. Respondents can provide relevant data in a variety of electronic formats, usually via websites, file sharing, or email.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, nor is a person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey for the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Montana/Dakotas State Office, Billings, Montana 30 days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the United States Forest Service, Little Missouri River National Grassland, Dickinson, North Dakota, are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest the surveys must file a notice of protest in time for it to be received in the BLM Montana/Dakotas State Office no later than July 7, 2025.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Montana/Dakotas State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Thomas L. Laakso, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for North Dakota; telephone: (406) 896-5125; email:
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for North Dakota at the address listed in the
If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10-calendar-day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. Upon receipt of a timely protest, and after a review of the protest, the authorized officer will issue a decision either dismissing or otherwise resolving the protest. A plat of survey will then be officially filed 30 days after the protest decision has been issued in accordance with 43 CFR part 4.
If a notice of protest is received after the date described in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability and public hearing.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Warrior Met Coal Mines. The BLM is also announcing that a public hearing will be held to receive comments on the Draft EIS, fair market value (FMV), maximum economic recovery (MER), and on factors that may affect the FMV and MER determinations of the coal resources contain in the proposed lease by application (LBA) lease tracts.
To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments in the Draft EIS, please ensure that the BLM receives your comments within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its notice of availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS in the
A public hearing will be held on June 24, 2025, at 6 p.m. central time (CT).
The public hearing will be held at the Courtyard Northport, 700 Bridge Avenue, Northport, Alabama 35476. Any updates to the public
The Draft EIS and associated documents are available for review on the BLM project website at
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
Shayne Banks, BLM Southeastern States District Manager, telephone: 601-919-4652; address: 273 Market Street, Flowood, MS 39232; email:
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services for contacting Ms. Banks. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
The BLM Southeastern States District Office received two Federal LBAs to expand current mining operations located in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC, proposes to expand Mine No. 4 (ALES-055797), and Warrior Met Coal BC, LLC, proposes to expand Blue Creek Mine No. 1 (ALES-056519). Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC, and Warrior Met Coal BC, LLC, are subsidiaries of Warrior Met Coal, Inc., and will henceforth be referred to collectively as “Warrior Met Coal.”
The LBA for the Mine No. 4 expansion (ALES-055797) consists of approximately 5,704.52 acres of private surface lands (
The BLM initially began preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate the LBA for Mine No. 4. Upon further review of the potential effects of the proposed action for Mine No. 4 expansion and, given the proximity to the Blue Creek Mine No. 1 expansion LBA, the BLM determined that an EIS is warranted, and that both LBAs would be evaluated under a single EIS.
Containing approximately 8,346.015 acres.
The purpose of the project is to provide for responsible development of coal resources in the Warrior Basin by responding to two Federal coal LBAs submitted by Warrior Met Coal to access a total of approximately 14,050 acres of Federal minerals underlying split-estate lands in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. The applications propose to extract approximately 53.2 million tons of recoverable Federal metallurgical coal reserves.
The need is established by the BLM's responsibility under the Mineral
The proposed action is to offer for competitive lease sale approximately 5,704.52 acres of Federal minerals for Mine No. 4 (ALES-055797) and 8,346.015 acres of Federal minerals for Blue Creek Mine No. 1 (ALES-056519) with the intent of allowing for the proposed extraction of a combined 53.2 million tons of metallurgical coal reserves by means of underground longwall mining techniques. The surface of the lands identified in both LBAs are privately owned. Implementation of the proposed action would result in the BLM holding two competitive lease sales, one for each LBA.
The BLM also evaluated the no action alternative under which the BLM would deny the two LBAs and the land would not be offered for lease.
The Draft EIS analyzes environmental impacts of several key resources, including air quality, geology and minerals (including subsidence), socioeconomics, water resources, and wildlife resources. The analysis evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed action and the no action alternative on these resources. Additional resources were considered, and rationales are provided in the scoping report included in the Draft EIS.
The notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the
A public hearing will be held on June 24, 2025, at 6 p.m. CT. The meeting location will be at the Courtyard Northport, 700 Bridge Avenue, Northport, Alabama 35476.
Any updates to the public hearing will be provided through a press release and will be posted to the ePlanning project website:
The Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation and Enforcement and the Alabama Surface Mining Commission are cooperating agencies. The BLM is the lead agency for this project.
The BLM will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual Section 1780 and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Indian Tribal Nations and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the two proposed leases for Federal coal that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the comment period.
The BLM is seeking input and comments for the Draft EIS, the proposed sale, the fair market value, and maximum economic recovery on the proposed lease tracts, to ensure that a comprehensive review of the proposed action and alternatives is considered. Comments should specifically address the adequacy of the analysis for each resource concern, including but not limited to air quality, geology and minerals, water resources, wildlife resources, and socio-economic impacts. Additionally, feedback on the adequacy of the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS is encouraged, including suggestions for any additional alternatives that may warrant an evaluation.
Any proprietary information or data that you submit to the BLM must be marked as confidential and mailed directly to the Southeastern States District Office, Attention: Shayne Banks (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective April 23, 2024, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by ICL-IP America, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of alkyl phosphate esters from China were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on June 2, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5628 (June 2025), entitled “Alkyl Phosphate Esters from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-721 and 731-TA-1689 (Final).”
By order of the Commission.
National Endowment for the Arts.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 46 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference or videoconference.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Lara Allee, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chair of March 11, 2022, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 10.
Weeks of June 9, 16, 23, 30, and July 7, 14, 2025. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 9, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 23, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 30, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 7, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 14, 2025.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Chris Markley at 301-415-6293 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Form 176, Security Acknowledgement and Termination.”
Submit comments by August 5, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Kristen Benney, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0072 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Section 7(b)(6) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) (45 U.S.C. 231f) and 20 CFR part 321 under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) permits annuitants, beneficiaries and claimants to submit mailing address and direct deposit authorizations to facilitate the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) verification and certification of benefit payments electronically. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires federal agencies to provide the public the option to submit, maintain and transact business electronically. The procedures pertaining to the RRB's authority to collection direct deposit and mailing address information to carry out RRA and RUIA benefit
The RRB propose to use “Form COA-1, Change of Address (internet)” to allow railroad annuitants, beneficiaries and claimants to initiate a change to their mailing address through the Citizen-Centric Online Self-Services (CCOSS) on the myRRB web portal (
The RRB propose to use “Form DDC-1, Direct Deposit Change (internet)” to allow a railroad annuitants, beneficiaries and claimants to update their direct deposit information through the Citizen-Centric Online Self-Services (CCOSS) on the myRRB web portal (
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, July 22, 2025, at the Commission's headquarters and via videoconference.
The meeting will be conducted at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, and by remote means (videoconference). Members of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website at
The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public via webcast on the Commission's website at
The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging businesses and their investors under the federal securities laws.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its automated price improvement (“AIM”) for complex orders comprised of flexible exchange (“FLEX”) Option series and non-FLEX Option series (“FLEX v. Non-FLEX Order”) for S&P 500 Index options (“SPX options”). 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
In 2021, the Exchange amended Rules 5.37 and 5.38 regarding its Automated Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”) and Complex Automated Improvement Mechanism (“C-AIM”) to permit the Exchange to determine, per trading session (
The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 5.73 regarding FLEX AIM Auctions with respect to FLEX v. Non-FLEX Orders for SPX options.
The Exchange recently amended its Rules to permit FLEX v. Non-FLEX Orders.
In connection with this proposed change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.73, Interpretation and Policy .02 to provide that it is deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade and a violation of Rule 8.1
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system because the Exchange would handle SPX FLEX v. Non-FLEX Orders submitted into a FLEX AIM Auction in the same manner as non-FLEX SPX complex orders, which addresses the different trading characteristics, market model, investor basis and conditions presented in SPX as compared to different option classes.
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 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 it will apply to all SPX FLEX v. Non-FLEX Agency Orders submitted into FLEX AIM auctions by all market participants, and in the same manner it applies to the current maximum size provision applicable to SPX complex orders submitted into non-FLEX AIM. This will provide consistency between AIM auction mechanisms into which complex orders may be submitted that contain non-FLEX SPX legs. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the proposed rule change relates to an Exchange-specific auction mechanism in a class of options only listed for trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. 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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 19, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On April 14, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described in more detail in the Notice,
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by June 27, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 11, 2025.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to exempt closed-end management investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that are listed as of or after May 20, 2025 from the annual meeting of Shareholders requirement set forth in Exchange Rule 14.10(f). The text
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.
Exchange Rule 14.10(f) requires that each Company
The annual meeting requirement applicable to Closed-End Funds originates only from exchange listing rules and is not otherwise required under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) or applicable state laws. Under Exchange Rules Closed-End Funds are the only registered investment companies that are required to hold annual shareholder meetings. Generally, the main purpose of the annual shareholder meeting is to allow Shareholders to elect the directors who are responsible for the oversight of the company and its strategic direction. The annual shareholder meeting requirement dates back to 1909 and derives from a provision included in individually negotiated listing agreements on New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”).
Although the annual shareholder meeting requirement dates back to 1909, the requirement was not memorialized in the 1940 Act. The 1940 Act is generally designed to protect the interests of Shareholders with respect to all critical aspects of the structure and operation of a fund. Nonetheless, when Congress considered requiring that registered investment companies hold annual meetings it declined to adopt the requirement.
While the 1940 Act does not require an annual shareholder meeting, it otherwise provides various mechanisms designed to protect the interest of Closed-End Fund Shareholder interests. Like other types of corporations, trusts, or partnerships, an investment company must be operated for the benefit of its owners. Unlike most business organizations, however, investment companies are typically organized and operated by an investment adviser that is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the fund. In most cases, the investment adviser is separate and distinct from the fund it advises, with primary responsibility and loyalty to its own Shareholders. Because the structure of a fund differs from a company, the board of directors plays an important role in fund governance by overseeing the performance of service providers that run the fund's day-to-day operations (including the fund's adviser) and monitoring for potential conflicts of interests.
The 1940 Act protects Closed-End Fund Shareholders by preserving their ability to elect directors who are responsible for the oversight of the fund. Specifically, the 1940 Act requires a Closed-End Fund to hold a Shareholder meeting in two instances: (1) to elect the initial board of directors; and (2) to fill all existing vacancies on the board if Shareholders have elected less than a majority of the board. Further, the 1940 Act requires that Shareholders fill any director vacancies if they have elected less than two-thirds of the directors holding office.
As noted above, listed Closed-End Funds are the only registered investment companies that are required to hold annual shareholder meetings. In the Prior Proposal OIP, the Commission indicated that the structural differences between ETFs and Closed-End Funds could potentially create unique investor protection issues for Closed-End Fund Shareholders if their annual meeting rights were eliminated—concerns that might not exist for shareholders of exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the argument that retail investors seek to exit their investment at NAV incorrectly assumes that investors purchased shares with that expectation. This assumption is contradicted by actual investor behavior, as many investors deliberately purchase listed Closed-End Fund shares on the secondary market when they are trading at a discount to NAV.
Importantly, to the extent there are reasons the Closed-End Fund is trading at a discount for non-market driven reasons Congress delineated a function to oversee discount management: Independent directors of the Closed-End Fund. Independent Directors monitor a Closed-End Funds discount and can—and have—enacted changes if the fund is trading at a discount for reasons unrelated to market conditions.
According to data presented by ICI, retail shareholders show minimal participation in annual meetings.
While retail Shareholders would face little disadvantage from removing annual meetings, the current requirement actually creates vulnerability by providing recurring opportunities for concentrated minority Shareholders to implement changes detrimental to the broader Shareholder base. As demonstrated in ICI's previous analysis of the Voya Prime Rate Trust case, approximately one-third of shareholders abstained from voting, enabling a minority interest to gain control and fundamentally alter both the fund's investment strategy and portfolio composition.
This one-third non-participation rate is historically significant, mirroring almost exactly the proportion of non-voting shares observed by the SEC and Congress in their 1930s studies when similar takeovers occurred. This pattern of retail disengagement and subsequent takeover vulnerability led regulators in 1940, when crafting the 1940 Act, to conclude that mandatory annual meetings could potentially harm retail investors more than help them. Despite nine decades of technological advancement retail investors' voting behavior remains largely unchanged, perpetuating the same vulnerabilities.
Despite the benefits Closed-End Funds provide to long-term retail investors, activist entities have increasingly targeted these funds using discount arbitrage strategies.
This activity has not only caused the specific harms that the 1940 Act sought to prevent but has contributed to a significant decline in the number of listed Closed-End Funds available to investors.
Not only will the removal of the annual shareholder meeting requirement for Closed-End Funds list as of or after May 20, 2025 provide benefits to shareholders, the proposal would not eliminate any existing rights since it only affects future closed-end funds that list after implementation. Since these funds haven't been created yet and no investors have purchased shares in them, no current shareholders would lose any voting privileges they currently possess.
Rule 14.10(e) provides for the exemptions from the corporate governance rules afforded to certain types of companies. Specifically, Rule 14.10(e)(1)(E) sets forth exemptions from the corporate governance rules specifically applicable to management investment companies. The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 14.10(e)(1)(E)(iv) which would provide that management investment companies listed as of or after May 20, 2025 that are Closed-End Funds, as defined in Rule 14.8(a), are exempt from the requirements relating to Meetings of Shareholders (as set forth in Rule 14.10(f)). The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .13 (Management Investment Companies) and .15 (Meetings of Shareholders or Partners) to reiterate that that Closed-End Funds listed as of or after May 20, 2025 are exempt from the Meetings of Shareholders requirement under Rule 14.10(f). The Exchange also proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .13 (Management Investment Companies) and .15 (Meetings of Shareholders or Partners) to provide that Closed-End Funds that transfer from another listing exchange will continue to be subject to the Meetings of Annual Shareholders requirements under Rule 14.10(f). An existing Closed-End Fund that merges or reorganizes into a new Closed-End Fund does not constitute a listing transfer for purposes of Rule 14.10.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act.
In the Exchange's view, limiting the annual shareholder meeting exemption to Closed-End Funds listed as of or after May 20, 2025 strikes an appropriate balance in preserving existing shareholder voting rights in established funds while offering new funds a pathway to avoid the potentially adverse and expensive consequences often associated with annual shareholder meetings. While the proposal would remove the Exchange's annual shareholder meeting mandate for Closed-End Funds listed as of or after May 20, 2025, these new funds would retain the flexibility to voluntarily incorporate annual meeting provisions into their organizational bylaws should they elect to do so.
The investor protections under the 1940 Act will continue to apply to Closed-End Funds listed as of or after May 20, 2025. The Exchange believes that because the 1940 Act preserves Shareholder ability to elect Directors, requires Independent Directors to approve significant actions, and requires a Shareholder vote on material governance and policy changes, the Exchange's requirement to hold an annual shareholder meeting is unnecessary.
Given that annual shareholder meetings are not mandated for any other registered investment companies on the Exchange, the Exchange believes that imposing this requirement specifically on Closed-End Funds lacks substantive justification. The Exchange believes that eliminating the annual shareholder meeting obligation would not undermine investor protection, as the tendency for Closed-End Funds to trade at NAV discounts represents an inherent structural feature that investors both recognize and frequently leverage strategically, rather than an issue that would be remedied through annual meetings.
The Exchange believes that the proposal enhances investor protection by removing a mechanism (
Further, removing the annual meeting requirement would remove operational costs of the Closed-End Fund, which are ultimately born by retail investors. Data shows that on average annual meetings burden retail shareholders in listed Closed-End Funds with costs ranging from $32,000, for routine meetings, to $761,000, for contested matters, annually.
Currently, no Closed-End Funds are listed on the Exchange. Existing Interpretation and Policy .15 to Rule 14.10 Rule 14.10(f) requires that each Company listing common stock or voting preferred stock, and their equivalents, hold an annual meeting of Shareholders within one year of the end of each fiscal year. Given this, any Closed-End Fund listed as of or after May 20, 2025 fund would not be required to hold an annual meeting until one year after its first fiscal year-end following listing. Therefore, funds listed on or after May 20, 2025 would not face annual meeting requirements until after the Commission's final decision on this proposal. The Exchange believes applying the proposed exemption to Closed-End Funds listed as of or after May 20, 2025 would provide potential benefits without requiring the funds to delay listing or undergo a merger or reorganization after an exemption from annual meeting requirements is adopted. This approach allows eligible funds to utilize the proposed exemption while preserving the rights of shareholders in existing Closed-End Funds. Such funds would remain subject to existing annual meeting requirements under Exchange Rules until the Commission approves an Exchange Rule that specifically exempts them from this obligation. The Exchange believes investor protection is preserved through the proposal's carefully designed grandfathering and optionality mechanisms. By applying the change exclusively to future Closed-End Funds that list on the Exchange, the proposal ensures no existing shareholders lose any voting privileges they currently possess. This forward-looking approach means current investors in existing Closed-End Funds maintain all their rights, while future investors will enter new funds with full knowledge of the governance structure, enabling informed investment decisions. Importantly, eliminating the Exchange listing requirement for annual meetings doesn't prohibit funds from holding them; new Closed-End Funds would still have the option to maintain annual meetings through their own bylaws if they choose to do so. This creates a market-based approach where funds can differentiate themselves based on governance structures, potentially using annual meetings as a competitive feature if they believe it provides value. This non-disruptive, forward-looking approach respects existing rights while creating flexibility for new market entrants, allowing for innovation in fund governance while ensuring transparency for investors rather than mandating a one-size-fits-all approach.
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 Exchange Act. The purpose of the proposal is to eliminate the annual shareholder meeting requirement for Closed-End Funds listed as of or after May 20, 2025 and would apply equally to all similarly situated funds listed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposal may enhance competition as it establishes a competitive landscape where funds may distinguish themselves through their chosen governance frameworks, potentially highlighting annual meetings as a value-adding feature when deemed beneficial. The Exchange further believes that removing the annual shareholder
The Exchange notes that other listing venues can adopt similar rules if they so desire. As such, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal imposes any burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Emerald Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to remove text capping the number of Limited Service MIAX Emerald Express Interface (“MEI”)
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the third explanatory paragraph in Section 5)d)ii) of the Fee Schedule to remove text that caps the maximum number of additional Limited Service MEI Ports available to each Market Maker. The purpose of this change is to provide consistency in the Fee Schedule with the fee schedules of the Exchange's affiliated equity options exchanges, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX”), MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX Pearl”), and MIAX Sapphire, LLC (“MIAX Sapphire”), which do not include language providing for a similar cap in their respective fee schedules. Upon effectiveness of this proposal, the Exchange will include the same cap on the number of Limited Service MEI Ports in its MEI interface specification document, available on its website, which is the same location where its affiliated equity options exchanges include their cap for similar ports. The Exchange does not propose to amend the fee charged for each additional Limited Service MEI Port that Market Makers may voluntarily purchase.
Currently, the Exchange allocates two Full Service MEI Ports
The Exchange established Limited Service MEI Ports to enhance the MEI Port connectivity available to Market Makers, and Limited Service MEI Ports have been made available to Market Makers since the Exchange launched operations in 2019.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the third explanatory paragraph in Section 5)d)ii) of the Fee Schedule to remove language that caps the maximum number of Limited Service MEI Ports that are available to each Market Maker. In particular, the Exchange proposes to delete the following sentence from Section 5)d)ii) of the Fee Schedule: “Market Makers are limited to ten additional Limited Service MEI Ports per Matching Engine, for a total of fourteen Limited Service MEI Ports per Matching Engine.” This change will bring the Exchange's Fee Schedule in line with its affiliates' fee schedules (MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Sapphire
Limited Service MEI Ports are not an unlimited resource and including the cap on the number of Limited Service MEI Ports in the Fee Schedule may hamper the Exchange's ability to provide fair and equitable access
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange also believes that its proposal is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
This proposal is not meant to increase port revenue because the cap will remain unchanged. It will simply be located in the MEI interface specifications document, rather than the Fee Schedule. Accordingly, the Exchange's obligations under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Further, the Exchange anticipates that it will continue to expand its System and provide Market Makers and other market participants with additional access, including Limited Service MEI Ports, based on customer demand and in response to changing market conditions. The Exchange represents that any expansion or reduction in the number of additional Limited Service MEI Ports will be conducted in a similar manner that ensures fair access to its System.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose a burden on inter-market competition because it is not intended to address a competitive issue. Rather, the proposal is intended to promote consistency across the fee schedules of the Exchange's affiliates with the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes the proposal to no longer include the cap on the number of Limited Service MEI Ports in the Fee Schedule will not impose any burden on competition because it will provide greater flexibility for the Exchange's ability to adjust access to the Exchange's network in order to ensure that the Exchange meets its obligations under the Act such that access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory among its Members, as well as ensure sufficient capacity and headroom in the System, as needed.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose a burden on intra-market competition because additional Limited Service MEI Ports are available to all Market Makers on an equal basis for an equal fee. It is a business decision of each Market Maker whether to pay for additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 14, 2025, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons and to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
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 Rules 4.13, 5.1, and 8.32. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.13(e), which governs its Nonstandard Expirations Program (“Program”), to permit P.M.-settled options on the Cboe Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“CBTX”) and the Mini-Cboe Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“MBTX”) that expire any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month (“Expiration Friday”) or days that coincide with an end-of-month expiration) (“Weekly Expirations”) and that expire on the last trading day of the month (“EOMs”). Currently under the Program, the Exchange is permitted to list P.M.-settled options on any broad-based index eligible for standard trading that expire on: (1) any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM expiration) and (2) the last trading day of the month.
The Nonstandard Expiration Program will apply to CBTX and MBTX options in the same manner as it currently applies to broad-based index options. Weekly and EOM Expirations are subject to all provisions of Rule 4.13 and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however, that Weekly and EOM Expirations are P.M.-settled, and new series in Weekly and EOM Expirations may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring Weekly or EOM Expiration.
The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for each Weekly Expiration (
If the Exchange is not open for business on a respective Monday, the normally Monday expiring Weekly Expirations will expire on the following business day. If the Exchange is not open for business on a respective Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the normally Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday expiring Weekly Expirations will expire on the previous business day. If two different Weekly Expirations on an index would expire on the same day because the Exchange is not open for business on a certain weekday, the Exchange will list only one of such Weekly Expirations. In addition, pursuant to Rule 4.13(e)(3), transactions in expiring index options with Weekly and EOM Expirations may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on their last trading day (Eastern Time).
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.13(c), which governs quarterly index expirations (“QIXs”), to add CBTX and MBTX options to the list of options in Rule 4.13(c) that are eligible for quarterly index expirations (“QIXs”), which are currently available for options on the S&P 100 Index (“OEX options”) S&P 500 Index (“SPX options”), Mini-S&P 500 Index (“XSP options”), the Russell 2000 Index (“RUT options”), and Mini-Russell 2000 Index (“MRUT options”).
Third, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.13, Interpretation and Policy .13, to permit the listing of P.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options that expire on Expiration Fridays. Currently, pursuant to Rule 4.13, Interpretation and Policy .13, the Exchange is permitted to list P.M.-settled SPX options, XSP options, RUT options, and MRUT options that expire on Expiration Fridays. Combined with the proposed rule change above to permit the Exchange to list P.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options with Weekly Expirations, the Exchange would be permitted to list P.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options with expirations on all Fridays (in addition to all other days of the week). CBTX and MBTX options that are P.M.-settled and expire on Expiration Fridays are subject to all provisions of Rule 4.13 and treated the same as A.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options, except that they are P.M.-settled.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.1, which governs trading days and hours, in conjunction with the proposed addition of CBTX and MBTX options that are P.M.-settled and expire on Expiration Friday. Rule 5.1(b)(2)(C) currently provides that on their last trading day, Regular Trading Hours for index options with Nonstandard Expirations, as well as expiring P.M.-settled SPX, XSP, RUT, and MRUT options, may be effected on the Exchange between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time
As noted above, the Exchange may currently list P.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options with expirations on the last calendar of the month and quarter.
The Exchange believes that the introduction of Weekly Expirations and Expiration Friday expirations that are P.M.-settled for CBTX and MBTX will provide market participants with additional hedging tools and greater trading opportunities, regardless of in which index option market they participate. By offering expanded expirations along with the current standard A.M.-settled expirations (as well as P.M.-settled monthly and quarterly expirations), the proposed rule change will allow market participants to purchase options on CBTX and MBTX available for trading on the Exchange in a manner more aligned with specific timing needs (such as to hedge special events) and more effectively tailor their investment and hedging strategies and manage their portfolios. In particular, the proposed rule change will allow market participants to roll their positions on more trading days, thus with more precision, spread risk across more trading days and incorporate daily changes in the markets, which may reduce the premium cost of buying protection. For example, the Exchange believes that market participants may be paying for more protection than needed if they are seeking to hedge weekend or special event risk that occurs. Therefore, the Exchange believes that P.M.-settled daily expirations (including on all Fridays) would allow market participants to purchase an option based on their needed timing and allow them to tailor their investment or hedging needs more effectively. In addition, because P.M.-settlement permits trading throughout the day on the day the contract expires, the Exchange believes this will permit market participants to more effectively manage overnight risk and trade out of their positions up until the time the contract settles.
The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand in Weekly Expirations and Expiration Friday P.M.-settled expirations for CBTX and MBTX options to warrant inclusion in the Program and in the Rules, and that the Program and the Rules, as amended, will continue to provide investors with additional means of managing their risk exposures and carrying out their investment objectives.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes that the Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with trading of P.M.-settled Weekly and Expiration Friday expirations for CBTX and MBTX options. The Exchange does not believe that its Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) will experience any capacity issues as a result of this proposal and represents that it will monitor the trading volume associated with any possible additional CBTX and MBTX options series listed as a result of this proposal and the effect (if any) of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
In addition to this, the Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards in place are adequate to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading CBTX and MBTX P.M.-Settled options with Weekly Expirations or Expiration Friday expirations (as the Exchange currently applies these to CBTX and MBTX options that are P.M.-settled with monthly and quarterly expirations) and will support the protection of investors and the public interest. Furthermore, the trading of CBTX and MBTX options with Weekly and P.M.-settled Expiration Friday expirations will be subject to the same rules that currently govern the trading of these options with other expirations, including governing customer accounts, position and exercise limits,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the introduction of P.M.-settled Weekly and Expiration Friday expirations for CBTX and MBTX options (rather than offering those expirations for just broad-based indexes) will provide investors with expanded hedging tools and greater trading opportunities and flexibility in additional index option markets.
The Exchange does not believe that the addition of CBTX and MBTX options to the Nonstandard Expirations Program, to the P.M.-settled Expiration Friday program, or the QIX program will raise any prohibitive regulatory concerns, nor adversely impact fair and orderly markets on expiration days. The Exchange has not experienced any meaningful regulatory concerns, nor adverse impact on fair and orderly markets, in connection with these programs, nor with the listing of CBTX and MBTX options that are P.M.-settled and expire on the last calendar day of the month and quarter (as the Exchange currently does) and is unaware of any reason why adding P.M.-settled options with expirations each day of the week for CBTX and MBTX options (which overlie a narrow-based index rather than a broad-based index) would be create such concerns or impact. Particularly, the Exchange does not believe increases in the number of P.M.-settled options series and expirations will have any significant adverse economic impact on the futures, index, or underlying index component securities markets (the Exchange notes there are currently no futures or securities futures listed on the underlying indexes). The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide investors with greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, allowing them to transact in CBTX and MBTX options in a manner more aligned with specific timing needs and more effectively tailor their investment and hedging objectives by listing these options that expire each trading day of the week, in addition to
As also discussed above, the Exchange already lists P.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options that expire on the last calendar day of the month and quarter; the proposed rule change merely permits these listings to occur under different programs within the Rules for consistency within the Exchange's Rules.
The Commission previously recognized that listing P.M.-settled index options with Weekly Expirations and Expiration Friday expirations (in addition to EOM Expirations (which would include expirations on the last day of calendar quarters)) was consistent with the Act.
Further, the Exchange believes P.M.-settlement is appropriate for this CBTX and MBTX options because they trade within a complex where, in addition to the underlying components, there are multiple other highly correlated instruments that all hold Bitcoin available for hedging (
As is the case for options on broad-based indexes, the Exchange does not believe the listing of additional P.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options (which are narrow-based index options) will have any significant economic impact (such as on market quality or volatility) on the component securities underlying the index surrounding the close as a result of expiring p.m.-settled options or impact market quality. This is based on the data provided to and reviewed by the Commission (and the Commission's own conclusions based on that review, as noted above) and due to the significant changes in closing procedures in the decades since index options moved to a.m.-settlement.
Further, the index underlying CBTX and MBTX options satisfies the generic listing criteria in Rule 4.10(b). Upon approval of those listing criteria, the Commission noted that these generic standards were reasonably designed to ensure the protection of investors and the public interest and to ensure that the trading markets for the components were adequately capitalized and sufficiently liquid, and that no one component dominated the index, thus minimizing the potential for manipulation.
• each component security has a market capitalization of at least $75 million, except that for each of the lowest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index, the market capitalization is at least $50 million;
• trading volume of each component security has been at least one million shares for each of the last six months, except that for each of the lowest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index, trading volume has been at least 500,000 shares for each of the last six months;
• in a capitalization-weighted index or a modified capitalization-weighted index, the lesser of the five highest weighted component securities in the index or the highest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate represent at least 30% of the total number of component securities in the index each have had an average monthly trading volume of at least 2,000,000 shares over the past six months;
• no single component security represents more than 25% of the weight of the index, and the five highest weighted component securities in the index do not in the aggregate account for more than 50% (60% for an index consisting of fewer than 25 component securities) of the weight of the index; and
• component securities that account for at least 90% of the weight of the index and at least 80% of the total number of component securities in the index satisfy the requirements of Rule 4.3 applicable to individual underlying securities.
Therefore, by satisfying the generic listing criteria for narrow-based index options, the index underlying CBTX and MBTX options is, like broad-based indexes, designed to minimize the potential for manipulation, further reducing any potential concerns associated with P.M.-settlement.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to end trading at 4:00 p.m. on the last trading day for transactions in expiring P.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options will prevent continued trading on a product after the exercise settlement value has been fixed, thereby mitigating potential investor confusion and the potential for increased costs to investors as a result of potential pricing divergence at the end of the trading day.
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change that Nonstandard Expiration Program series of CBTX and MBTX options will be aggregated with other options within those classes for purposes of position (and exercise) limits is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and thus protect investors. This proposed aggregation is consistent with the treatment of positions for purposes of position (and exercise) limits for other classes that participate in the Nonstandard Expiration Program.
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 P.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options with Weekly and Expiration Friday expirations will be available to all market participants. By listing CBTX And MBTX options with these expirations (in addition to the monthly, quarterly, and standard Expiration Friday expirations (A.M.-settled) that are currently listed), the proposed rule change will provide all investors that participate in the markets for these index options available for trading on the Exchange with greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility to meet their investment and hedging needs, which are already available for broad-based index options. Further, the proposed change to make CBTX and MBTX options that are P.M.-settled and expire on the last business day of the month or quarter eligible for listing under different programs under the Rules will have any burden on competition, as this proposed rule change is intended to maintain consistency within the Rules and will result in the same series being listed. The proposed 4:00 p.m. closing time for expiring P.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options on their expiration dates will apply equally to all market participants trading these options.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list P.M.-settled CBTX and MBTX options with Weekly and Expiration Friday expirations will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because these options are proprietary Exchange products. The Exchange may currently list the same expirations for other index options, so the proposed rule change merely expands the availability of these expiration programs to additional products. Other exchanges offer similar expirations for index options as well as short-term options programs for certain equity options that expire each day of the week, at the end of the calendar month, at the end of the calendar quarter, and on Expiration Fridays
Additionally, CBTX and MBTX options with these expirations will trade in the same manner as other options with these expirations currently do.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization that proposed the rule change.”
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by June 27, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 11, 2025.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 20, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On April 14, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described in more detail in the Notice,
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by June 27, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 11, 2025.
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Kansas dated May 29, 2025.
Issued on May 29, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21110C and for economic injury is 211110.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Kansas.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before June 26, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2025-0140 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nia Daniels, (202) 267-7626, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by July 7, 2025.
Please send written comments:
Michael Schoen by email at
The collection involves the compilation of:
• Commissioning data, such as the initial standards and tolerances parameters for the aerial navigation aids (NavAids) and electrical/electronic facilities, owned and operated by non-federal sponsors;
• Maintenance activities and operational history, such as outages and repairs, for facilities owned and operated by non-federal sponsors; and
• The facilities' periodically verified parameters for the life of the facility.
• Form 6000-10, 1.72 hours per response.
• Form 6000-8, 30 minutes per response.
• Form 6030-1, 30 minutes per response.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.
This notice announces action taken by FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final. The actions relate to the U.S. 6219, Section 050 Transportation Improvement Project from Meyersdale, PA to Old Salisbury Road, MD located in Somerset County, PA and Garrett County, MD.
By this notice, FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions
David Snyder, Interim Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Pennsylvania Division, 30 North Third Street, Suite 700, Harrisburg, PA 17101; telephone (717) 221-3461.
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency action by issuing approval for the following highway project in the State of Pennsylvania and State of Maryland: U.S. 6219, Section 050 Transportation Improvement Project. The purpose of the Project is to complete Corridor N of the Appalachian Development Highway System, to improve the system linkage in the region, provide safe and efficient access for motorists traveling on U.S. 219, and provide transportation infrastructure to support economic opportunities in existing and planned communities and employment/business centers and natural resource-based industries within the Appalachian Region.
The needs of the Project are:
• Existing U.S. 219 does not provide efficient mobility for trucks and freight.
• There are numerous roadway and geometric deficiencies present along the existing U.S. 219 alignment.
• The existing roadway infrastructure is a limiting factor in economic development opportunities in the Appalachian Region.
The actions by the Federal agency, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the FHWA Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project, signed May 29, 2025, in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the project, issued on May 29, 2025, and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record. The FEIS, ROD, and other documents in the FHWA administrative record files are available by contacting FHWA at the address provided above. The FEIS and ROD can also be viewed and downloaded from the project website at:
This notice applies to FHWA agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351].
2. Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109].
3. Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].
4. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].
5. Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and 1536].
6. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)].
7. Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712].
8. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 668-668c].
9. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470].
10. Farmland Protection Policy Act [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209].
12. Safe Drinking Water Act [42 U.S.C. 300(f)
13. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 [42 U.S.C. 4601
14. Noise Control Act of 1972 [42 U.S.C. 4901
15. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901-6992(k)].
16. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [42 U.S.C. 9601-9675].
17. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C. 12101].
18. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands.
19. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.
20. Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources.
21. Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites.
22. Executive Order 13287, Preserve America.
23. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.
24. Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality.
25. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This revision is for the National Consumer Complaint Database (NCCDB), which is an online interface allowing consumers, drivers, and others to file complaints against unsafe and unscrupulous companies and/or their employees, including shippers, receivers, and transportation intermediaries, depending on the type of complaint. These complaints cover a wide range of issues, including but not limited to driver harassment, coercion, movement of household goods, financial responsibility instruments for brokers and freight forwarders, Americans with Disability Act compliance, electronic logging devices, entry-level driver training, Medical Review Officers, and Substance Abuse Professionals (SAPs). FMCSA requests approval to revise the ICR titled “National Consumer Complaint Database.” Four comments were received in response to the 60-day
Comments on this notice must be received on or before July 7, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Eduardo Suarez, Commercial Enforcement Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (760) 693-6646;
FMCSA maintains online information and resources to assist consumers, drivers, and others associated with the motor carrier industry with understanding their consumer protection rights and, if necessary, with filing a complaint with the Agency. When effectively applied, this information can contribute to safer motor carrier operations on our nation's highways and improved consumer protection. NCCDB complaint data also provides FMCSA with statistical information regarding motor carriers, in particular the household goods moving industry. NCCDB data is used to alert consumers of those motor carriers with a history of complaints related to transporting household goods and helps FMCSA provide guidance to the public on how to avoid being victimized by unscrupulous moving companies. The data also allows FMCSA to identify problematic motor carriers for enforcement actions and promote compliance. Motor carriers can use NCCDB data to assist with complaint reconciliation.
Since 2016, the NCCDB system has been the central repository for motor carrier complaints received by FMCSA; however, responding to consumer complaints has a long-standing Agency regulatory history. Congress first mandated a Safety Violation Hotline Service in section 4017 of the “Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century,” (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (June 9, 1998)). Congress required DOT to establish, maintain, and promote the use of a nationwide toll-free telephone system to be used by drivers of commercial motor vehicles and others to report potential violations of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748 (Dec. 9, 1999)) created FMCSA and expanded the Safety Violation Hotline Service to include a 24-hour operation and accept consumer complaints on violations of the commercial regulations previously administered by the Interstate Commerce Commission (
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005)) required FMCSA to create a system, database, and procedures for filing and logging consumer complaints relating to household goods motor carriers for the purpose of compiling or linking complaint information gathered by FMCSA and the States with regard to such carriers. SAFETEA-LU also required FMCSA to create procedures to allow the public to have access, subject to 5 U.S.C. 552(a), to aggregated complaint information and a process for carriers to challenge duplicate or fraudulent information in the database.
Complaints are also accepted through the NCCDB in connection with other statutory mandates including the protection of drivers against harassment and coercion under sections 32301(b) and 32911, respectively, of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012)).
FMCSA is in the process of modernizing its NCCDB complaint program and system as well as expanding the program alongside process recommendations submitted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in September 2023. These recommendations are being implemented to expand and enhance FMCSA's ability to centralize the collection, monitoring, and response to consumer complaints about Agency programs, to establish reasonable procedures to provide timely responses to consumers regarding their complaints, and to share complaint information with the public as well as Federal and State agencies, as necessary and applicable.
On January 3, 2025, FMCSA published a notice in the
One comment was received from the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and its Moving and Storage Conference (MSC), expressing strong support for modernizing the NCCDB. The commenters emphasized the NCCDB's role in consumer protection and fraud detection, endorsed GAO's 2023 recommendations, and called for improvements such as clearer branding, enhanced staffing, and data analytics to detect repeat offenders.
FMCSA reviewed the comment submitted by ATA and MSC and finds the recommendations and considerations listed above are not directly applicable to requesting OMB review and approval of this ICR. However, FMCSA will consider these comments as it takes advantage of the new, enhanced technology and system design, adds fraud prevention and security measures, simplifies a complex application process, and improves data quality and safety.
One comment was received from the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), urging FMCSA to modernize the NCCDB in light of rising freight fraud, including identity theft and double brokering. TIA supported GAO's recommendations and proposed improvements such as automated complaint tracking, expanded reporting categories, and public access to complaint outcomes.
FMCSA reviewed the comment submitted by TIA and finds the suggestions are not applicable to the specific burden and information collection elements under review by OMB. However, FMCSA recognizes the importance of addressing freight fraud and will take these comments into account during broader system development and enforcement improvement efforts.
One comment was received jointly from the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC), Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH), and Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT), emphasizing the need for the NCCDB to better support safety enforcement. They cited increased truck crash fatalities and recommended more transparency, timely complaint handling, and integration of safety complaints into FMCSA oversight activities.
FMCSA reviewed the comment submitted by TSC, CRASH, and PATT. While the concerns raised are not directly applicable to the current ICR, FMCSA will consider these recommendations as it modernizes the NCCDB to enhance public trust, accountability, and carrier oversight.
One comment was received from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), criticizing FMCSA for failing to follow through on its 2013 commitment to accept complaints against unauthorized brokerage activity through the NCCDB. SBTC noted that FMCSA had pledged to gather such complaints, collaborate with industry,
FMCSA reviewed the comment submitted by SBTC and finds that the concerns raised are not applicable to the current request for OMB review and approval of this ICR. However, FMCSA acknowledges the issue of unregistered brokerage activity and will consider the comment as it evaluates broader enforcement priorities and potential enhancements to complaint intake and tracking functions.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 2133-0510 (Request for Waiver of Service Obligation, Request for Deferment of Service Obligation, and Application for Review) is used to determine if waivers and deferments may be granted to graduates of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) and State Maritime Academies (SMAs) who participated in the Student Incentive Payment (SIP) Program. There was a reduction in the total burden hours for this collection, due to less time taken to complete the forms associated with this collection. There are no other changes to this collection. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before August 5, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MARAD-2025-0094 through one of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to
Danielle Bennett, 202-366-7618, Office of Maritime Labor and Training, W23-458, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room, Washington, DC 20590.
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 2133-0509 (Maritime Administration Annual Service Obligation Compliance Report) is used to determine if a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy or a State maritime academy Student Incentive Payment (SIP) program graduate is complying with the terms of the service obligation. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before August 5, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MARAD-2025-0093 through one of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to
Danielle Bennett, 202-366-7618, Office of Maritime Labor and Training, Room W23-458, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Email:
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice—extension of the nomination period for membership on the U.S. Department of Transportation Advisory Board.
The Department announces an extension of its solicitation for nominations for membership on the U.S. Department of Transportation Advisory Board. The Advisory Board is intended to provide strategic vision and high-level guidance to modernize and enhance the United States transportation systems.
The deadline for nominations for Committee members must be received on or before June 13, 2025.
All nomination materials should refer to the docket number above and be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
USDOT Advisory Board Designated Federal Officer, c/o Juli Huynh—Director, Office of Policy Coordination and Development, Office of the Secretary,
The Department announces the establishment of the U.S. Department of Transportation Advisory Board (USDOT Advisory Board). The purpose of the USDOT Advisory Board is to provide strategic vision and high-level guidance to modernize and enhance the United States' transportation systems. With the American Society of Civil Engineers estimating that over $4 trillion is needed to improve U.S. infrastructure from a D rating to a B, the Board's expertise will be instrumental in shaping policies and initiatives that drive safety, efficiency, resiliency, and long-term progress.
In particular, the USDOT Advisory Board will be dedicated to: (1) developing strategic recommendations for infrastructure modernization and expansion; (2) identifying key investment opportunities in transportation technology and innovation; (3) providing insights into regulatory and policy improvements to enhance efficiency and reduce bureaucratic obstacles; and (4) advising on public-private partnerships to maximize funding and impact. The Board will be continuing, but subject to renewal every two years. The Board is expected to meet quarterly. The Secretary, in consultation with the Board, may create subcommittees to work on specific tasks. Unless otherwise required by law or approved by the Secretary, all meetings will be held virtually.
In this notice, the Department is also soliciting nominations for membership to the Board. The Board shall report to the Secretary and shall consist of approximately ten members, representing a range of industry leaders and experts across key sectors of transportation, including aviation, logistics, infrastructure, construction,
(1) Name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone, fax, and email address) of the individual requesting consideration;
(2) A letter of support from a company, union, trade association, academic or non-profit organization on letterhead containing a brief description why the nominee should be considered for membership;
(3) Short biography of nominee including professional and academic credentials;
(4) An affirmative statement that the nominee meets all Committee eligibility requirements.
Please do not send company, trade association, or organization brochures or any other information. Materials submitted should total two pages or less. Should more information be needed, DOT staff will contact the nominee, obtain information from the nominee's past affiliations, or obtain information from publicly available sources, such as the internet.
Nominations must be received before June 13, 2025. Nominees selected for appointment to the Board will be notified by return email and by a letter of appointment.
Issued in Washington, DC.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing pricing for four United States Mint numismatic silver products in accordance with the table below:
The new numismatic product prices will be effective June 13, 2025.
Willie Pasco; Product Manager, Sales & Marketing, United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-6725.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by August 5, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0216, using either of the following methods:
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Saleemah McMillan, at 202-308-5383.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by August 5, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0478, using either of the following methods:
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Heather Kitchens, at 571-296-7152.
a. The clause at DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, covers cyber incident reporting requirements for incidents that affect a covered contractor information system or the covered defense information residing therein, or that affects the contractor's ability to perform the requirements of the contract that are designated as operationally critical support and identified in the contract.
b. The provision at DFARS 252.204-7008, Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls, requires an offeror that proposes to vary from any of the security controls of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 in effect at the time the solicitation is issued to submit to the contracting officer a written explanation of how the specified security control is not applicable or an alternative control or protective measure is used to achieve equivalent protection.
c. The provision at DFARS 252.239-7009, Representation of Use of Cloud Computing, requires offerors to report that they “anticipate” or do not anticipate” utilizing cloud computing service in performance of a contract resulting from a solicitation containing the provision. The representation will notify contracting officers of the applicability of the cloud computing requirements of the DFARS 252.239-7010 clause of the contract.
d. The clause at DFARS 252.239-7010, Cloud Computing Services, requires reporting of cyber incidents that occur when DoD is purchasing cloud computing services.
These DFARS provisions and clauses facilitate mandatory cyber incident reporting requirements in accordance with statutory regulations. When reports are submitted, DoD will analyze the reported information for cyber threats and vulnerabilities in order to develop response measures as well as improve U.S. Government understanding of advanced cyber threat activity. In addition, the security requirements in NIST SP 800-171 are specifically tailored for use in protecting sensitive information residing in contractor information systems and generally reduce the burden placed on contractors by eliminating Federal-centric processes and requirements. The information provided will inform the Department in assessing the overall risk to DoD covered defense information on unclassified contractor systems and networks.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of DoD's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection for use under Control Number 0750-0006 through October 31, 2025. DoD proposes that OMB approve an extension of the information collection requirement, to expire three years after the approval date.
DoD will consider all comments received by August 5, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0750-0006, using either of the following methods:
•
•
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Saleemah McMillan, at 202-308-5383.
a. DFARS provision 252.237-7025, Preaward Transparency Requirements for Firms Offering to Support Department of Defense Audits—Representation and Disclosure, is prescribed at DFARS 237.270(e)(3) for use in solicitations for the acquisition of financial statement auditing or audit remediation services.
b. DFARS clause 252.237-7026, Postaward Transparency Requirements for a Firm that Supports Department of Defense Audits, is prescribed at DFARS 237.270(e)(4) for use in solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of financial statement auditing or audit remediation services.