International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Departmental Offices Treasury.
Final rule
The Department of the Treasury (“Department” or “Treasury”) publishes this final rule to adjust its civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) for inflation as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (collectively referred to herein as “the Act”).
Effective June 17, 2025.
For information regarding the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program's CMPs, contact Richard Ifft, Lead Management and Senior Insurance Policy Analyst, Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, Federal Insurance Office, Room 1410 MT, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622-2922 (not a toll-free number), or Sherry Rowlett, Program Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, at (202) 622-1890 (not a toll free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access these numbers via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
For information regarding the Treasury-wide CMPs, contact Richard Dodson, Senior Counsel, General Law, Ethics, and Regulation, 202-622-9949.
In order to improve the effectiveness of CMPs and to maintain their deterrent effect, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (“the Inflation Adjustment Act”), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74) (“the 2015 Act”), requires Federal agencies to adjust each CMP provided by law within the jurisdiction of the agency. The 2015 Act requires agencies to adjust the level of CMPs with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking and to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation, without needing to provide notice and the opportunity for public comment required by 5 U.S.C. 553. This rule constitutes the Department's 2025 annual adjustment. The 2015 Act provides that any increase in a CMP shall apply to CMPs that are assessed after the date the increase takes effect, regardless of whether the underlying violation predated such increase.
The method of calculating CMP adjustments applied in this final rule is required by the 2015 Act. Under the 2015 Act and the Office of Management and Budget guidance required by the 2015 Act, annual inflation adjustments subsequent to the initial catch-up adjustment are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the October preceding the date of the adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U. As set forth in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-25-02 of December 17, 2024, the adjustment multiplier for 2025 is 1.02598. Under the 2015 Act, any increase in CMP must be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1.
With regard to the CMPs assessed under 31 U.S.C. 3802(a), the penalty amount for 2024 ($9,704) is multiplied by 1.02598, resulting in a maximum penalty amount of $9,956 for 2025.
With regard to the CMPs assessed under 31 U.S.C. 333(c), the first penalty under this section was adjusted to $9,704 in 2024. This amount is multiplied by 1.02598, resulting in a penalty of $9,956 for 2025. The second penalty under this section was adjusted to $48,512 in 2024. Multiplying this amount by 1.02598, results in a penalty of $49,772 for 2025.
Finally, with regard to the CMP assessed under Section 104 of Title I, Public Law 107-297, as amended, the penalty amount for 2024 ($1,697,012) is multiplied by 1.02598 resulting in a penalty of $1,741,100 for 2025.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Section 701(b)) requires agencies to make annual adjustments for inflation to CMPs, without needing to provide notice and the opportunity for public comment and a delayed effective date required by 5 U.S.C. 553. Additionally, the methodology used for adjusting CMPs for inflation is provided by statute, with no discretion provided to agencies regarding the substance of the adjustments for inflation to CMPs. The Department is charged only with performing ministerial computations to determine the dollar amount of adjustments for inflation to CMPs. Accordingly, prior public notice, an opportunity for public comment, and a delayed effective date are not required for this rule.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3.f of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
Administrative Practice and Procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties
Administrative Practice and Procedure, Penalties.
Insurance, Terrorism.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 16, part 27 and part 50 of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
31 U.S.C. 3801-3812
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $9,956 (2025) for each such claim.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Includes or is accompanied by an express certification or affirmation of the truthfulness and accuracy of the content of the statement, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $9,956 (2025) for each such statement.
31 U.S.C. 321, 333
(c)
5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321; Title I, Pub. L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322, as amended by Pub. L. 109-144, 119 Stat. 2660, Pub. L. 110-160, 121 Stat. 1839, Pub. L. 114-1, 129 Stat. 3, and Pub. L. 116-94, 133 Stat. 2534 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note); Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 601, Title VII (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
(a)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for certain navigable waters of Lake Pontchartrain, New Orleans, LA. This action is necessary to protect race participants, spectators, first responders, and the general public from the hazards created by the New Orleans Offshore Grand Prix on the navigable waters of the United States during the event. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from June 24, 2025, through June 29, 2025, and will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Xiaobin Tuo, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; 504-365-2246, email
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. Prompt action is needed to make this temporary regulation effective prior to the start of the event on June 24, 2025, to provide for safety of persons and vessels during the event. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because there is insufficient time to receive, consider, and respond to public comments before the start date.
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. 70041. The COTP Sector New Orleans has determined that potential hazards associated with the New Orleans Offshore Grand Prix boat race starting June 24, 2025, will be a safety concern
The COTP is establishing a temporary special local regulation in Lake Pontchartrain, New Orleans, LA from June 24, 2025, through June 29, 2025, from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily. The race zone will encompass all navigable waters within the following coordinates on Lake Pontchartrain, New Orleans, LA: 30°01.87900′ N, 090°06.36500′ W to 30°02.52700′ N, 090°06.31800′ W to 30°02.71800′ N, 090°08.95700′ W to 30°01.30300′ N, 090°09.20700′ W. The special local regulation aims to ensure the safety of vessels and personnel upon the navigable waters of the specified waterway before, during, and after the scheduled marine event. Only predesignated vessel(s) or person(s) participating in the event will be permitted within the regulated area. Spectator vessel(s) or person(s) may not enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative A designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of Sector New Orleans; to include a Federal, State, and/or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the special local regulation. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this area must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. Spectator vessels will not be allowed to anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or a designated patrol vessel in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by the COTP or the designated representative. Spectator vessels may anchor outside the regulated area to observe the event.
The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. Vessels hailed or signaled by a designated patrol vessel, must stop and comply with any directions given. Failure to do so might result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The COTP or a designated representative might terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
The COTP or a designated representative may inform the public of the effective period of the special local regulation or changes to dates and times of enforcement through the use of Local Notice to Mariners (LNM), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.
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 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This regulatory action determination is based on the following considerations. During events, this regulation excluding vessels and persons from the race area will be enacted for short, predetermined periods of time. Persons and vessels may enter, transit through, or anchor in this area with authorization from the Captain of the Port. Vessels will also be able to safely transit around the regulated area. The Coast Guard will also provide advance notification of the regulations to the local community by MSIBs, BNMs, and designation of Patrol Commanders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 for a high-speed boat race which will exclude non-participant vessels from entering the race area on Lake Pontchartrain during specified hours over a six-day period. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
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 the regulated area, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by (504) 365-2545 or VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67. Any spectator permitted to enter the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
(3) No spectator vessel is allowed to anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or a designated representative in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by the COTP or the designated representative.
(4) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by a designated representative, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(5) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time if it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or designated representative will conclude enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
(d)
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education.
Final priority, requirements, and definitions.
The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority, requirements, and definitions under the Rehabilitation Training program, Assistance Listing Number 84.264L. The Department may use the priority, requirements, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2025 and later years. We will use the priority, requirements, and definitions to award a cooperative agreement for a national vocational rehabilitation technical assistance center (NVRTAC) to provide training and technical assistance to personnel of State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and their partners to upgrade and increase their competencies, skills, and knowledge in providing quality services and effective management of the VR program.
The priority, requirements and definitions are effective July 17, 2025.
Roslyn Thomas, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Lyndon Baines Johnson Building, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 987-0105. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
We published a notice of proposed priority, requirements, and definitions (NPP) for this program in the
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority, requirements, or definitions.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish a National Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center (NVRTAC).
The NVRTAC will provide intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance to State VR agencies that will enable VR agencies to improve VR program management and performance and, most importantly, to improve employment outcomes achieved by individuals with disabilities.
Regarding program management and performance, the NVRTAC's training and technical assistance will support the assessment, development, and enhancement of VR State agency leaders and staff knowledge, skills, and abilities to improve service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities and to perform the following functions:
(a) Implementing State VR agency-level best practices and policies for maximizing engagement and achieving Competitive Integrated Employment (CIE) for individuals with disabilities. The center will provide VR agency personnel with technical assistance on evaluating whether the management strategies they adopt have been shown to increase the percentage of participants who achieve an MSG/credential and exit the program with an employment outcome and modifying those strategies, if necessary, to achieve continuous program improvement. The NVRTAC will provide intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance to State VR agencies to improve or develop a broad range of management policies and practices, both programmatic and fiscal, to address needs common to many agencies;
(b) Disseminating clear, consistent messages on RSA priorities for the development and implementation of sound management and financial systems and strong internal controls;
(c) Identifying strengths and weaknesses in the agency's capacity to understand factors affecting program effectiveness and timeliness (such as the ability to analyze case service data to identify trends and disparities in employment outcomes achieved by various groups of individuals with disabilities) and designing management strategies to address these deficits;
(d) Analyzing the VR agency's human resource management for inclusion of best practice for recruitment, retention, and onboarding strategies including orientation training for new VR agency directors;
(e) Understanding statutory and regulatory requirements related to performance management, including calculations for the common performance measures required under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA);
(f) Monitoring and improving financial and program data reporting and accuracy;
(g) Conducting performance evaluation and quality assurance improvement activities, including the use of data for performance management systems and the implementation of the common performance measures required by WIOA;
(h) Conducting strategic planning and implementing the strategies to address aspects of a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) assessment that pose challenges and barriers to improving service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, including those with significant and the most significant disabilities, and students and youth with disabilities;
(i) Developing and implementing effective and efficient program and fiscal policies for delivering pre-employment transition services under section 113, VR services under section 103(a), and supported employment services under title VI of the Rehabilitation Act;
(j) Implementing proactive strategies for the State VR agency to collaborate and engage with educational agencies, Centers for Independent Living, American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, and community rehabilitation programs;
(k) Implementing strategies to maximize timely and meaningful engagement of VR clients during application and eligibility determination, career planning, development of the Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE), and service delivery;
(l) Accurately addressing the required descriptions in the VR services portion of the WIOA Unified or Combined State Plan, particularly in setting goals and strategies that can improve performance;
(m) Coordinating efforts with the State Rehabilitation Council;
(n) Developing relationships with public policymakers and optimizing the VR agency's presence and visibility by marketing the program in accordance with the requirements in the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance at 2 CFR 200.467 and RSA guidance;
(o) Understanding the key resource management elements, including but not limited to financial management, human resources management, and program management and their relevance to important VR program outcomes and various cost containment measures, such as implementing an order of selection giving priority for services to individuals with the most significant disabilities, assessing the need for and impact of implementing a financial needs test and cost participation in services, and implementing the requirement to seek comparable services and benefits for certain services, among others; and
(p) Resolving corrective action plans and strategies to increase compliance and reduce future noncompliance.
Regarding effective resource management, the NVRTAC will support the assessment, development, and enhancement of staff knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure that—
(a) Resources, including program funds and personnel, are being used for allowable purposes, are appropriately allocated, and support innovation in compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements;
(b) Internal controls and reporting systems upon which State VR agencies base fiscal and programmatic forecasting and decision-making are improved and reliable to support attainment of program goals and objectives; and
(c) Resources, including program funds and personnel, are fully used in ways that meet existing program needs, priorities, and expected employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
The following are TA project activities the NVRTAC will undertake to address weaknesses in resource management:
(a) Assess performance of grantees' financial management processes used to support attainment of fiscal and programmatic outcomes (for example, whether an agency's fiscal processes support the accurate tracking and reporting of non-Federal funds to maximize the drawdown of Federal award funds to support attainment of employment outcomes); and use the assessment to identify areas for improvement in fiscal processes that will assist the agency in meeting program goals.
(b) Assess personnel training and technical assistance needs to identify gaps in fiscal knowledge, skills, and abilities that prevent the agency from the effective and efficient use of resources necessary to achieve employment outcomes.
(c) Provide intensive training and technical assistance on financial planning, to maximize program resources and attainment of program goals and objectives, maximize opportunities for non-Federal sources of match, avoid potential maintenance of effort deficits and match penalties, and meet the reservation of funds requirement for pre-employment transition services.
(d) Provide technical assistance on implementing Federal, State, and program fiscal requirements, including internal controls, in an efficient and effective manner to reduce unnecessary burden and to focus efforts on program outcomes.
(e) Provide technical assistance on the identification, collection, and analysis of program and fiscal data necessary for program management and maximizing available resources to plan and support consumer services.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
The Department establishes the following project requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements, including one or more of the activities listed under these requirements, in any year in which this program is in effect.
To meet the requirements of this priority, the NVRTAC must, at a minimum, conduct the following activities through innovative approaches:
(a) Establish an advisory committee for the NVRTAC. The committee members must include individuals with disabilities, representatives from State VR agencies, including business specialists, individuals with VR subject matter expertise, business representatives, community rehabilitation providers, individuals with subject matter expertise in assistive technology and advance technology for
(b) Establish a state-of-the-art NVRTAC website with information technology platform for communicating with State VR agencies and providing training and TA to state VR agencies' personnel. NVRTAC must ensure that all products produced by the NVRTAC and posted on the website have been developed in collaboration with RSA and meet government and industry-recognized standards for accessibility and security.
The website will serve as a key training and technical assistance delivery vehicle; peer-to-peer communication hub; stakeholder convening platform; and the central repository of information about technical assistance and training materials and resources developed and provided by the NVRTAC, including training modules for State VR agency leadership and VR counseling professionals, as well as for new employees onboarding resources. In addition, the system must have the capacity to track training completion or related records, as applicable.
(c) Conduct nationwide technical assistance and training needs assessment of State VR agencies' personnel during the first six months of the project. The needs assessment must include the areas of VR program management, financial and resource management, service delivery, and employment outcomes and should be informed by the following—
(1) Input from RSA staff, RSA monitoring reports, and State VR agency corrective action plans;
(2) Input from State VR agencies and workforce development partners, including community rehabilitation programs, about their needs, priorities, and innovative approaches to program and resource management that lead to improved service delivery;
(3) Information regarding the latest National trends, barriers, challenges, and opportunities; and
(4) Information regarding effective and efficient program and resource management strategies, techniques, and practices that may be applicable to State VR agencies.
(d) Develop a training and technical assistance plan. Based on the results of the needs assessment, develop an overarching training and technical assistance plan that must include, at a minimum—
(1) Management strategies and practices that result in improved service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, including the rationale for their selection;
(2) Conceptual framework for the selected strategies and practices, including key assumptions, expectations, and presumed relationships or linkages among strategies and practices;
(3) Nature and scope of the intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance to be provided in support of the selected strategies and practices;
(4) Protocols and timelines for requesting, obtaining, and completing training and technical assistance; and
(5) Protocols and timelines for transitioning the State VR agency's technical assistance, upon completion of the technical assistance agreement, to the designated RSA State Liaison, when appropriate.
(e) Provide intensive training and technical assistance to State VR agencies consistent with the technical assistance plan based on a review of a wide variety of information sources, including, but not limited to, RSA's monitoring reports and corresponding State VR agency corrective action plans; State audit reports; WIOA State plans, particularly the VR portion of these State plans; RSA staff feedback; and the results of comprehensive statewide needs assessments. Intensive training and technical assistance may be provided on-site, over a specified time period, under the terms of signed intensive training and technical assistance agreements between the NVRTAC and the participating State VR agencies. Numerical targets for the number of intensive training and technical assistance agreements will be included in the cooperative agreement between RSA and the NVRTAC.
The intensive training and technical assistance agreements between the NVRTAC and the requesting State VR agencies must include the following components:
(1) Management strategies and practices to be implemented by the State VR agency that are designed to improve service delivery and maximize quality employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
(2) Nature and scope of the training and technical assistance to be provided by the NVRTAC. Topic areas addressed within the intensive training and technical assistance agreements may include the priority's broad management, performance, or resource management areas or the targeted and universal training and technical assistance topics in paragraph (g), below.
(3) Roles and responsibilities of the NVRTAC, State VR agency, RSA, and other workforce development partners, including the commitment of resources.
(4) Logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) that is specific to the intensive need being addressed and that includes performance outcomes, targets, and baselines; project activities, inputs, and outputs; and data collection and analysis commitments.
(f) Implement a plan for project evaluation, which includes a timeline for the evaluation and measurement benchmarks, that will evaluate the impact of the center's training and technical assistance on the performance of the VR agencies that received the center's services. As part of the evaluation plan, there must be a logic model that includes data elements, inputs, activities, outputs, and short-term and long-term performance indicators regarding—
(1) Quantitative outcomes resulting from the program management and employment strategies and practices, including—
(i) Timeliness of the VR processes and services;
(ii) Number of employment outcomes;
(iii) VR participants' employment or career-readiness;
(iv) Cost-effectiveness; and
(v) Sustainability;
(2) Quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's training and technical assistance activities;
(3) Quantitative or qualitative insights about the relationship between strategies, practices, and training and technical assistance activities on critical outcomes for VR personnel, VR clients, and key partners, including through—
(i) Pre- and post-training assessments;
(ii) Focus groups; and
(iii) Success stories.
(g) Develop and implement models and materials for targeted and universal training and technical assistance for VR agency personnel, on state VR program and fiscal management, and employment strategies for individuals with disabilities, which must include the following—
(1) Integration of assistive technology and artificial intelligence tools to fuel CIE in the 21st century for individuals with disabilities;
(2) Career pathways education, internships, apprenticeships, training, and supports in high-demand
(3) Registered and industry-recognized apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, and on-the-job training;
(4) Supported employment and customized employment;
(5) Customized training and credential programs to meet employers' demand;
(6) Self-employment and entrepreneurship, including services available under the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program;
(7) Business engagement and employer supports including dual customer models such as Progressive Employment;
(8) Practices to enhance the employment capacity of individuals with the most significant disabilities receiving supported employment services, such as the Individual Placement and Support model;
(9) Pre-employment transition services that prepare students with disabilities and transition services that prepare youth with disabilities to identify career interests through work-based learning and early career exploration opportunities, including career pathways, internships, and job shadowing, with a focus on high-demand and STEM careers;
(10) Career counseling techniques and resources, including labor market information tools such as Career Index Plus;
(11) Collaboration with workforce development partners, community rehabilitation programs, and other community-based organizations to provide the comprehensive support services that individuals with significant and the most significant disabilities, and students and youth with disabilities, need to succeed, such as the Integrated Resource Teams model;
(12) Approaches that encourage VR clients to consider jobs in the advanced technology fields that respond to expected labor market needs;
(13) Approaches that encourage VR clients to enter and remain engaged in the VR process, such as rapid engagement, motivational interviewing, benefits counseling, and financial empowerment training, and vehicles such as the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) tax-free accounts for individuals with disabilities and flexibilities associated with Social Security Income; and
(14) Community outreach strategies to expand the pool of potential VR applicants and referral sources.
The Department establishes the following application requirements for the purpose of this priority. We may apply one or more of these requirements, including one or more of the activities listed under these requirements, in any year in which this program is in effect.
Applicants must—
(a) Provide a landscape analysis of current challenges, opportunities, and initiatives in national VR technical assistance and training. The landscape analysis must address the following:
(1) Knowledge about—
(i) State VR program challenges in performance, including barriers and trends regarding program and resource management and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities especially those with significant and the most significant disabilities, and students and youth with disabilities, particularly as noted in recent RSA monitoring reports and State VR agency corrective action plans; and
(ii) Federal and State initiatives and best practices to improve program and resource management and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, particularly in response to requirements under WIOA.
(2) The proposed project's potential to contribute to these Federal and State initiatives by assisting State VR agencies in equipping personnel with the necessary skills and training to implement the substantive provisions of the Rehabilitation Act introduced by WIOA that are designed to improve the employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
(b) Provide an implementation plan. The implementation plan must describe the feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks and meeting expected outcomes.
(c) Describe the plans to establish a state-of-the-art NVRTAC website and information technology platform.
(d) Describe plans for completing the national technical assistance and training needs assessment.
(e) Specify strategies to maximize coordination between the NVRTAC and other TA centers and seek opportunities to coordinate with other training and technical assistance investments, including those funded by the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, in the provision of training and technical assistance to State VR agencies.
(f) Describe the proposed evaluation plan and logic model for the project.
(g) Provide a dissemination plan. The dissemination plan must describe plans to disseminate its summative findings and results at national conferences, regional forums, or specialized meetings starting after the first year of the performance period, including cost-effective approaches such as virtual convenings, to engage State VR agencies and other potential Federal, State, local, and nongovernment partners, including—
(1) Types of events (
(2) Target audience (
(3) Convening modes (in-person, virtual).
The Department establishes the following definitions for this program to ensure that applicants have a clear understanding of how we are using these terms. We may apply these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits;
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing the final priority, requirements, and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background section of the NPP.
The final priorities, including requirements, contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the final priorities, including requirements, do not affect the currently approved data collection.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access Department documents published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education.
Final priorities and requirements.
The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities and requirements under the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training (RLTT) program with a focus on the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) and six rehabilitation topic areas. The Department may use these priorities and requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2025 and later years. This action is intended to address the national needs for the RLTT program, particularly the retention of vocational rehabilitation (VR) personnel at State VR agencies and recruitment of VR professionals where there are shortages through the training of RSA scholars.
The priorities and requirements are effective July 17, 2025.
Diandrea Bailey, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 987-0126. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
We published a notice of proposed priorities and requirements (NPP) for this competition in the
Projects that propose a CSPD project that provides training to currently employed State VR agency personnel, including VR counselors with disabilities. Within CSPD training, applicants may identify an area of concentration consistent with this priority, such as vocational evaluation and career assessment or others.
The academic training for all participants must meet the designated State unit (DSU) personnel standards required under section 101(a)(7) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and 34 CFR 361.18. The training must also meet the qualifications for the master's degree or academic certificate specified in the State's CSPD plans or of the States with which the State VR counselors and other personnel are working.
CSPD proposed projects must develop and use innovative approaches to train VR professionals, including using cutting-edge technology or innovative applications of advanced technology (
Projects that provide academic training to RSA scholars where the training leads to a degree (undergraduate or master's level) or academic certificate in one of six rehabilitation topic areas that follow. Within these topic areas, applicants may identify an area of concentration consistent with this priority, such as vocational evaluation and career assessment or others.
1.
2.
The rehabilitation technology training program must be designed to ensure that RSA scholars acquire a 21st-century understanding of the evolving technology labor force, the needs of individuals with disabilities that might be addressed via technology, and the ways technology can unlock individuals' strengths.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Projects must provide assistance to scholars to secure or maintain employment with State VR agencies, where the job duties include provision of rehabilitation of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing (
The academic training for all participants must meet the DSU personnel standards required under section 101(a)(7) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and 34 CFR 361.18.
Rehabilitation topic area projects under this priority must develop and use innovative approaches to train RSA scholars, including using cutting-edge technology or innovative application of advanced technology (
In addition to academic training, RSA funded projects may provide a one-time stipend, to an amount as specified in the Notice Inviting Applications published in the
(a) completing an internship (
(b) obtaining qualifying employment in the specific field of study within a period of time after graduating and maintaining qualifying employment a minimum period of time beyond the required service obligation period as specified in the NIA; and
(c) utilizing a vetted employment expert or consultant to assist the RSA scholar in securing employment within a period of time after graduating with a State VR or related agency in the field of study as specified in the NIA.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
The Department establishes the following requirements for the RLTT program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
(a) Provide data on the current and projected employment needs and personnel shortages in State VR agencies and other related agencies (as defined in 34 CFR 386.4) in their local area, region, and State; and describe how the proposed project will address those employment needs and personnel shortages;
(b) Describe how the project will train RSA scholars, as applicable, including how the project will provide them with an understanding of the evolving labor force and the needs of individuals with disabilities to ensure that the RSA scholars have a 21st century understanding of the evolving labor force and the needs of individuals with disabilities. Applicants must describe how, upon completion of the training program, State VR personnel including VR counselors or RSA scholars will be prepared to assist individuals with disabilities to meet current demands and emerging trends in the labor market, including how—
(1) The program provides a breadth of knowledge, experience, and rigor that will adequately prepare scholars to meet the employment needs and goals of VR consumers and aligns with evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices and with competency-based skills (
(2) The program prepares RSA scholars to meet all applicable certification standards;
(3) The program addresses new or emerging consumer employment needs or trends at the national, State, and regional levels;
(4) The program trains RSA scholars to possess the skills needed to address the specialized needs of individuals with specific types of disability conditions, which may include, but are not limited to, physical disabilities, mental health disorders or illnesses, intellectual and developmental disabilities, blindness, and deafness;
(5) The program trains RSA scholars to understand the applications and strategies related to the integration of advanced assistive technology and artificial intelligence tools into VR services to fuel competitive integrated employment in the 21st century for individuals with disabilities and recognize the assistive technology needs of consumers and employers who hire individuals with disabilities throughout the rehabilitation process so that they will be better able to coordinate the provision of appropriate advanced assistive technology services and devices including artificial intelligence in order to assist the consumers to obtain and retain competitive integrated employment;
(6) The program teaches RSA scholars to work effectively with employers, including by teaching strategies for developing relationships with employers in their State and local areas, identifying employer needs and skill demands, making initial employer contacts, presenting job-ready clients to potential employers, and conducting follow-up with employers;
(7) The program teaches RSA scholars to work effectively with state education agencies (SEAs), and local educational agencies (LEAs), particularly special education systems and educators. This includes instruction on collaborating effectively with SEAs, LEAs, school administrators, and special education teachers to ensure their awareness of pre-employment transition services and vocational rehabilitation transition services, and ensuring the successful planning and provision of these services; and
(8) The latest technology is incorporated into the methods of instruction (
(c) Describe their methods to—
(1) Recruit highly capable prospective State VR counselors or RSA scholars who have the potential to successfully complete the academic program, all required practicum and internship experiences, and the required service obligation;
(2) Educate potential RSA scholars about the terms and conditions of the service obligation under 34 CFR 386.4, 386.34, and 386.40 through 386.43 so that they will be fully informed before accepting a scholarship and aware of the consequences should they fail to complete the program;
(3) Maintain a system that ensures that RSA scholars sign a payback agreement when they start and an exit certification form when they exit the program, regardless of whether they drop out, are removed, or successfully complete the program;
(4) Provide academic support and counseling to RSA scholars throughout the course of the academic program to ensure successful completion;
(5) Ensure that all RSA scholars complete an internship in a State VR agency (as defined in 34 CFR 386.4) as a requirement for program completion, unless the Secretary determines upon grantee request that there is sufficient justification for not completing an internship;
(6) Provide career counseling, including informing RSA scholars of professional contacts and networks, job leads, including those available through the RSA Payback Information Management System (PIMS), and other necessary resources and information to support RSA scholars in successfully obtaining and retaining qualifying employment;
(7) Maintain bi-monthly contact with RSA scholars upon successful academic training program completion and provide post-graduation support to assist RSA scholars to achieve qualifying employment as well as employment support, at a minimum, for the RSA scholars' initial three to six months of employment;
(8) Maintain quarterly communication with RSA scholars after program exit until the beginning of their service obligation date to ensure that scholar contact information in PIMS is up to date;
(9) Maintain and safeguard credentials to access PIMS for the timely review and approval of scholar employment; and
(10) Maintain accurate financial information on, while safeguarding the privacy of, current and former scholars from the time they are enrolled in the program until they successfully meet their service obligation;
(d) Describe a plan for developing and maintaining partnerships with State VR agencies, community-based rehabilitation service providers, and LEAs that includes—
(1) Coordination between the grantee and the State VR agencies and community-based rehabilitation service providers that will promote qualifying employment opportunities for RSA scholars and formalized on-boarding and induction experiences for new hires;
(2) Formal opportunities for RSA scholars to obtain work experiences through internships, practicum agreements, job shadowing, and mentoring opportunities;
(3) Formal opportunities for RSA scholars to obtain work experiences in LEAs to develop practical knowledge on effective special education teacher-VR counselor collaborations that foster increased awareness in LEAs of pre-employment transition services and vocational rehabilitation transition services, and the successful planning and provision of these services; and
(4) A scholar internship assessment tool that is developed to ensure a consistent approach to the evaluation of
(i) The tool will reflect the specific responsibilities of the scholar during the internship;
(ii) Grantees and worksite supervisors will work together to develop the assessment tool. Supervisors at the internship site will complete the assessment detailing the scholar's strengths and areas for improvement that must be addressed and provide the results of the assessment to the grantee; and
(iii) The grantee will ensure that (A) RSA scholars are provided with a copy of the assessment and all relevant rubrics prior to beginning their internship, (B) supervisors have sufficient technical support to accurately complete the assessment, and (C) scholars receive a copy of the results of the assessment within 90 days of the end of their internship;
(e) Describe how RSA scholars will be evaluated throughout the program to ensure that they are proficient in meeting the needs and demands of consumers and employers, including the steps that will be taken to provide assistance to an RSA scholar who is not meeting academic standards or who is performing poorly in a practicum or internship setting;
(f) Describe how the program will be evaluated, including how—
(1) The program will determine its effectiveness over time in filling vacancies in the State VR agency with qualified counselors or rehabilitation professionals capable of providing quality services to consumers;
(2) Input from State VR agencies and community-based rehabilitation service providers will be included in the evaluation;
(3) Feedback from consumers of VR services and employers (including the assessments described in paragraph (d)(4)) will be included in the evaluation;
(4) Data on the State VR program from other sources, such as the Department, will be included in the evaluation; and
(5) The data and results from the evaluation will be used to make necessary adjustments and improvements to the program.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Since this regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, it is not considered an “Executive Order 14192 regulatory action.”
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits;
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” OIRA has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these final priorities and requirements only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background section of the NPP.
The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this regulatory action would affect are institutions of higher education (IHEs) that meet the eligibility requirements in section 241(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and public and private nonprofit organizations and agencies that partner with IHEs. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the final priorities and requirements would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits would outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.
Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priorities and requirements would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for any project under the Rehabilitation Training (RT) program funds, an eligible applicant would evaluate the requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a RT grant. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of an application.
This regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this program.
You may also access Department documents published in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Temporary rule.
The National Park Service is issuing a temporary amendment to regulations for the National Capital Region. This amendment will temporarily remove barriers to the efforts of executive departments and agencies and the United States Semiquincentennial Commission to appropriately plan, organize, and execute an extraordinary celebration of the 250th Anniversary of American Independence through various events taking place within the Washington, DC region.
Effective June 17, 2025, through 11:59 p.m. eastern time on December 31, 2026.
Jennifer T. Nersesian, Regional Director, National Capital Region, (202) 619-7021,
On January 29, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14189, “Celebrating America's 250th Birthday.” This Executive Order announced a national policy to provide a grand celebration worthy of the momentous occasion of the 250th anniversary of American Independence on July 4, 2026. The Executive Order also established a White House Task Force on Celebrating America's 250th Birthday (Task Force 250). Task Force 250 is chaired by the President, vice chaired by the Vice President, and consists of cabinet-level Secretaries, including the Secretary of the Interior, and other officials. An Executive Director is responsible for day-to-day operations of Task Force 250. The Executive Order directs Task Force 250 to coordinate with executive departments and agencies to plan, organize, and execute an extraordinary celebration of the 250th Anniversary of American Independence. The Executive Director is empowered to seek information or advice from such other agencies as Task Force 250 shall direct. Task Force 250 terminates on December 31, 2026, unless extended by the President.
The Executive Order allows the President and the Vice President, as they deem appropriate, to invite the Executive Director of the United States Semiquincentennial Commission (Commission) to provide recommendations and advice to Task Force 250. Further, the Executive Order states that Task Force 250 shall coordinate communications from executive departments and agencies with the Commission. The Commission was established by Congress in the United States Semiquincentennial Commission Act of 2016 (114 Pub. L. 196) for the purpose of planning and orchestrating the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Appointed by the House and Senate leadership of both parties, the nonpartisan Commission is composed of 16 private citizens, 4 U.S. Representatives and 4 Senators, as well as 12 Ex Officio members from all three branches of the Federal Government and its independent agencies.
The celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence will consist of numerous events in locations across the nation, collectively referred to as America250 events. Event types include celebrations, ceremonials, ceremonies, commemorations, community events, cultural events, educational events, exhibits, milestones, reenactments, social events, and volunteer and service events. Events will be in-person, virtual, and many will be free. Events are ongoing and many more are planned and will take place leading up to and on July 4, 2026, and then through the end of the Semiquincentennial year.
Several America250 events that take place in and around Washington, DC will be planned, organized, and executed by the Commission and executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government, including, but not limited to, the White House, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Interior Department. Many of these events will occur on lands administered by the National Park Service (NPS) within the Washington, DC region. The NPS administers iconic monuments, memorials, and other locations within
Due to the nature and location of NPS-administered lands in Washington, DC, the NPS will play a key role in coordinating and carrying out America250 events on lands within its jurisdiction. This includes America250 events that will occur in part on the National Mall on and around July 4, 2026, and will require a significant effort to plan, organize, and execute. The Commission and executive departments and agencies planning, organizing, and executing America250 events on NPS-administered lands need assurance that they will have access to the locations necessary to carry out these events successfully.
NPS regulations for park areas within the Washington, DC region are found in 36 CFR 7.96, National Capital Region. Regulations governing special events are found in paragraph (g) of section 7.96. The term “special events” is defined in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) to include sports events, pageants, celebrations, historical reenactments, regattas, entertainments, exhibitions, parades, fairs, festivals and similar events (including events presented by the NPS), which are not demonstrations and which are engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(1)(ii). The regulation further clarifies that “special events” do not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers.
Under this definition, all America250 events planned, organized, and executed by executive departments and agencies or the Commission and taking place on lands administered by the NPS in the Washington, DC region, as described in paragraph (a) of section 7.96, will be “special events.” The regulations in paragraph (g) address various issues related to special events, including permit requirements, permit applications, closed areas, permit processing, permit limitations, permit priority, and permit revocation.
This rule exempts America250 events planned, organized, and executed by executive departments and agencies or the Commission from requirements in several of these regulations in order to create efficiencies related to permit processing, event duration and location, priority use of park areas, equipment and structures, and to achieve the goals of Executive Order 14189. Specifically, this rule exempts America250 events planned, organized, and executed by executive departments and agencies or the Commission from requirements that include the following as applied to special events:
• Limitations on the times and dates the Regional Director shall accept permit applications. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(3).
• The prohibition on issuing permits for special events in the White House area. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(3)(i).
• The prohibition on issuing permits for special events within portions of the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, and Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(3)(ii).
• The requirements that the NPS process permit applications for special events in order of receipt. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(4)(i).
• The requirement that use of a particular area is allocated in order of receipt of fully executed special event applications. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(4)(i).
• Priority use of particular park areas for specific national celebration events. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(4)(ii) and 36 CFR 7.96(g)(4)(iv).
• Limitations on the maximum duration of special events. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(4)(vi).
• Restrictions on the purposes for using temporary structures, except for the prohibition on the use of temporary structures for living accommodation activities. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(vi).
• Prohibition on structures on the White House sidewalk. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(vi)(A).
• Restrictions on the use of signs or placards. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(vii).
• Restrictions on the placement or storage of parcels, containers, packages, bundles or other property. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(viii).
• Restrictions on the erection, placement or use of structures or signs in Lafayette Park. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(ix).
• Restrictions on the placement of stages and sound amplification equipment at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(x).
• Restrictions on the use of sound amplification equipment on the White House sidewalk. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(xi)(A).
This rule also would allow the Regional Director to exempt America250 events planned, organized, and executed by executive departments and agencies or the Commission from other requirements related to special events in paragraph (g) upon a determination that such exemptions are necessary for the planning, organization, and execution of such events, after consideration of potential impacts to park resources and visitors.
This rule will not have the effect of providing executive departments and agencies exclusive use of all NPS-administered lands within Washington, DC region for the duration of this rule. Areas that are not in use for America250 events planned, organized, and executed by executive departments and agencies or the Commission will be available to the public, according to applicable law, including NPS regulations, and federal administrative policy.
This rule will be effective upon publication in the
Some locations within park areas have already been allocated to permittees who applied for and received special event permits prior to the effective date of this rule. This rule may result in changes to what had been authorized by those permits. The NPS will notify the permittees of such changes and mitigate impacts from those changes to the extent practicable.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
Task Force 250 has commenced planning festivities and events for America250 that launched on Memorial Day 2025 and will continue through the end of the Semiquincentennial year. On June 14, 2025, the NPS will celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the U.S. Army with a Military Parade and Celebration that will take place on the National Mall in Washington, DC. In accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)(B)),
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) 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.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of federally administered lands and waters. It has no direct effects on other areas. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. This rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated this rule under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and under the Department's Tribal consultation policy and has determined that Tribal consultation is not required because the rule will not have a substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian Tribes.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the NEPA is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. 43 CFR 46.210(i). This rule creates exemptions from requirements that apply to permitting America250 special events on NPS-administered lands in Washington, DC. These changes are administrative and procedural in nature because they do not directly authorize any activity to occur in park areas. All America250 events that occur on lands that are subject to the regulations in 36 CFR 7.96 during the effective period of this rule will require a permit that will be subject to the appropriate NEPA process at that time. The NPS also has determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under the NEPA.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211; the rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the rule has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. A statement of energy effects is not required.
District of Columbia, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 7 as set forth below:
54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 10-137 and D.C. Code 50-2201.07.
(g) * * *
(8)
Postal Service.
Final rule.
This document amends the rules of the Equal Access to Justice Act in Postal Service Proceedings to clarify the applicable rule for reconsideration of a decision on a fee application in Postal Board of Contract Appeal proceedings.
Effective June 17, 2025.
Postal Service Judicial Officer Department, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078.
Staff Attorney Sheena Allen (240) 636-4158
The rules of practice at 39 CFR 960.20(b) state that a party may seek reconsideration of the decision on the fee application in accordance with 39 CFR 955.30. While either party retains the option to seek reconsideration according to Part 955, the statement is generalized in consideration of any amendments to Part 955.
No other changes to the rules have been made.
In § 960.20 the Postal Service is replacing the text “39 CFR 955.30” with “the procedures in 39 CFR part 955”.
Claims, Equal access to justice, Lawyers.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, 39 CFR part 960 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1); 39 U.S.C. 204, 401(2).
(b) In Board of Contract Appeals proceedings, either party may seek reconsideration of the decision on the fee application in accordance with the procedures in 39 CFR part 955.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a petition submitted by WRB Refining in Borger, Texas to exclude (or “delist”) 7,000 cubic yards of F037 (petroleum refinery sludge) solids to be removed from their stormwater storage tanks for a one-time delisting. This determination is based on information the petitioner provided to the Agency, completion of sampling, and risk assessment using the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to determine whether the waste poses a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise managed. This final rule responds to a petition submitted by WRB Refinery to exclude stormwater solids from the definition of a hazardous waste. If not delisted, the stormwater solids are listed as F037 (primary oil/water/solids separation sludge). After careful analysis of the petition and evaluation of comments submitted by the public, the EPA has concluded that the petitioned waste is not hazardous waste when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. This exclusion applies to the stormwater solids generated at WRB Refinery Borger, Texas facility. Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill but imposes testing conditions to ensure that the future-generated waste remain qualified for delisting.
This rule is effective June 17, 2025
E'shala Dixon RCRA Permits & Solid Waste Section (LCR-RP) Land, Chemical and Redevelopment Division, EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270, phone number: 214-665-6592; email address:
The EPA is finalizing:
1. The decision to grant WRB Refinery petition to have its stormwater solids from the stormwater tanks excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste, subject to certain continued verification and monitoring conditions.
After evaluating the petition, the EPA proposed a rule on September 28, 2023 (88 FR 66742), to exclude the WRB Refinery waste from the lists of hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. The comments received on this rulemaking will be addressed as part of this decision.
WRB Refinery petition requests an exclusion for F037 waste listing pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 and asserts that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which the EPA listed F037. WRB Refinery also believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA's review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1) through (4) (hereinafter, all sectional references are to 40 CFR, unless otherwise indicated). In making the initial delisting determination, the EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 261.11(a)(2) and (3). Based on this review, the EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. If the EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste was originally listed, the EPA would have proposed to deny the petition. The EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated and waste variability. The EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. The EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from WRB Refinery is based on the information submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data from the Borger, Texas facility.
This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only if the requirements described in table 1 of part 261, appendix IX, and the conditions contained herein are satisfied. The one-time exclusion applies to 7,000 cubic yards of stormwater solids from the stormwater tanks.
Stormwater solids from the stormwater tanks will be dewatered onsite and transported to an authorized solid waste landfill (
This rule is effective June 17, 2025. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA allow rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. This is the case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These reasons also provide a basis for making this rule effective immediately,
Because the EPA is issuing the exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received our authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
The EPA has also authorized some States (for example: Louisiana, Oklahoma and Illinois) to administer a delisting program in place of a Federal program to make State delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If WRB Refinery transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any State with delisting authorization, WRB Refinery must obtain delisting authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the State.
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to the EPA or another agency with jurisdiction to exclude from the list of hazardous wastes, wastes the generator does not consider hazardous under RCRA.
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of 40 CFR parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273. Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a “generator-specific” basis from the hazardous waste lists.
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to the EPA to allow the EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed as hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
In May 2020, WRB Refinery petitioned the EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 261.31 and 261.32 solids from stormwater tanks (F037) generated from its facility located in Borger, Texas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, in its petition, WRB Refinery requested that the EPA grant a one-time exclusion for 7,000 cubic yards of solids.
The 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII hazardous constituents which are the basis for listing can be found in table 1.
To support its petition, WRB Refinery submitted:
1. Historical information on waste generation and management practice; and
2. Analytical results from nine samples with one duplicate for TCLP and Totals concentrations of compounds of concerns (COC)s.
The EPA received three public comments on February 16, 2023, proposed rule via
For a chemical-specific inputs for Beryllium, see Table A-1-30 in Appendix A of the DRAS Technical Support Document. As noted in the proposal, the EPA evaluated the risk that the waste would be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste in a landfill. We considered transport of waste constituents through groundwater, surface water and air. We evaluated
To predict the potential for release to groundwater from landfilled wastes and subsequent routes of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors derived from the EPA's Composite Model for leachate migration with transformation products. From a release to groundwater, the DRAS considers routes of exposure to a human receptor through ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater while showering and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing.
From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of the contaminated soil by a child. The technical support document and the users guide to DRAS are available at
Additional Information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability, not general applicability. The action approves a modification of an existing delisting petition under RCRA for the petitioned waste at a particular facility.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 14192 because it is a rule of particular applicability and exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the Regulatory flexibility provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601)
This action does nor contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. 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.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action applies only to a particular facility on non-Tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866
This action does not involve technical standards as described by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272)
This action is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability.
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 261 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; harvest specifications.
NMFS announces the final 2025 harvest specifications for salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet exclusive economic zone (EEZ) Area. This action is necessary to establish harvest limits for salmon during the 2025 fishing year and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska (Salmon FMP). The intended effect of this action is to conserve and manage the salmon resources in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Harvest specifications and closures are effective at 0700 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 16, 2025, until the effective date of the final 2026 harvest specifications for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment for the Harvest Specifications of the Cook Inlet Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska (EA); and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prepared for this action are available from
Adam Zaleski, 907-586-7228,
NMFS prepared the Salmon FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Section 679.118(b)(2) requires that NMFS consider public comment on the proposed harvest specifications and publish the final harvest specifications in the
The final 2025 SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of biological parameters for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon stocks and stock complexes (a stock complex is an aggregate of multiple stocks of a species). NMFS presented the preliminary 2025 SAFE report, dated January 2025, at the February North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting. The preliminary SAFE report provided recommendations to the SSC regarding the appropriate tiers for each stock; the status determination criteria (SDC) that will be used to evaluate overfishing (including OFLs); and the preliminary ABCs, which act as a ceiling for the TACs.
The Salmon FMP specifies methods to calculate OFLs and ABCs by assigning stocks to one of three tiers, with annual tier recommendations for each stock or stock complex provided in the SAFE report. The tier applicable to a particular stock or stock complex is determined by the level of reliable information available. Tier 1 stocks have the highest level of information quality available, while Tier 3 stocks have the lowest level of information quality available. NMFS used this tier structure to calculate OFLs and ABCs for each salmon stock or stock complex according to the methods specified in the Salmon FMP. Under the Salmon FMP, the annual catch limit (ACL) is set equal to ABC for each stock or stock complex, and TACs may be set less than ABC to account for additional sources of management uncertainty.
For Tier 1 stocks, the final 2025 SAFE report relies on forecasts of the coming year's salmon runs as the basis for the recommended OFLs and ABCs. SDC and harvest specifications are calculated in terms of potential yield. The potential yield is the total forecasted run size minus the number of salmon required to achieve spawning escapement targets and the estimated mortality from other sources, including other fisheries.
For 2025, no stocks were recommended to be Tier 2.
For Tier 3 stocks, the final SAFE report uses fishery catch estimates from prior years to inform the 2025 harvest specifications.
The SSC and Council reviewed NMFS's preliminary 2025 SAFE report for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery in February 2025. From these data and analyses, the SSC recommended an OFL and ABC for each salmon stock and stock complex. After considering the SSC's recommendations and public testimony, the Council unanimously took action to recommend TACs equal to the ABCs. Through this action, NMFS is implementing the OFLs and ABCs recommended by the SSC and TACs consistent with the Council's
NMFS is publishing the final 2025 harvest specifications after: (1) considering comments received within the comment period (see
The final 2025 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are based on the best scientific information available—primarily the 2025 SAFE report. The 2025 SAFE report was subject to peer review by the SSC, which recommended the ABCs, consistent with 50 CFR 600.310(f)(3) and 600.315(c) through (d). The Council did not recommend additional buffers between the ABCs and TACs to account for management uncertainty because sufficient uncertainty was accounted for in the SSC's ABC recommendation to prevent any stock or stock complex from overfishing. For 2025, the TACs are set equal to the combined species-level ABCs and are less than the combined species-level OFLs for all salmon stocks or stock complexes (table 1). Based on NMFS's experience managing the fishery in 2024 (including monitoring the harvest and harvest rates for each salmon species) and NMFS's success in keeping harvests below the ABC for all stocks and stock complexes in 2024, and in light of the discrete number of openings and the ability to implement inseason closures, NMFS has determined that these harvest specifications will prevent overfishing and maintain harvest levels below the ABC/ACL for each stock or stock complex.
NMFS published proposed harvest specifications on April 4, 2025 (90 FR 14771) and accepted public comment for 32 days, with the comment period closing on May 5, 2025. NMFS received 11 letters with 18 distinct comments during the public comment period. The comments were from individuals, individual drift gillnet fishermen, the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council, and the United Cook Inlet Drift Association.
Second, Amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP (89 FR 34718, April 30, 2024) established OY and MSY for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery in a manner that is fully consistent with National Standard 1 and all National Standard Guidelines. Comments on OY were addressed in that final rule. The definition of OY for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in Section 4.2.2 of the Salmon FMP is not part of the harvest specifications process.
To the extent this comment argues that the harvest specifications will not achieve OY, the summed TAC amounts across all species (table 1) fall within the OY range for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery (Section 4.2.2 of the Salmon FMP) and can be achieved by fishing vessels operating under the management measures implemented by amendment 16 and 50 CFR 679.118.
These harvest specifications establish the OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts for salmon during the 2025 fishing year to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Salmon FMP.
While this comment is outside the scope of this action, NMFS disagrees that the use of a TAC is an ineffective management tool. Further, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS specify ACLs (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(15)). Under the Salmon FMP, ACLs are equal to ABCs for the purposes of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery. Responses to similar comments were addressed in the Comments and Responses section of the amendment 16 final rule (starting on page 34724 at 89 FR 34718, April 30, 2024). Additionally,
However, NMFS disagrees that the management regime limits fishing opportunities to an extent that it would be impossible for the fleet to harvest the TAC in 2025. During the 2024 salmon fishing season, an estimated 66 percent of the sockeye TAC was harvested by 206 total commercial participants. In total there were 244 vessels registered for this fishery in 2024 and the peak sockeye harvest occurred from July 8, 2024 to July 15, 2024, during which vessel participation did not exceed 185 vessels on any given day. This is approximately 75 percent of the vessels that could choose to participate in the fishery. Additionally, many participants chose to fish in State waters instead of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area on days when both areas were open. These factors taken together indicate that there was ample harvest opportunity and additional sockeye salmon available in 2024 for harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Therefore, there is potential for significantly increased effort and harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area that could lead to reaching the TAC established for one or more stocks.
Section 4.2.6 of the Salmon FMP describes the TAC setting process for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery. For Tier 1 stocks (stocks with the highest level of information quality available), the ABCs are based on available yield after accounting for the spawning escapement target, predicted harvests in non-EEZ fisheries, and a buffer to account for scientific uncertainty. Therefore, TACs for Tier 1 stocks are based on the current assessment of available harvest, not historical harvest estimates. There were no Tier 2 stocks identified for 2025.
For Tier 3 stocks (stocks with the lowest level of information quality available), as described in the A16 EA/RIR, the ABCs are based on estimated historical harvests that have occurred in the EEZ in the timeseries under consideration (1999-present). Discussion of the timeseries used to estimate historical harvest from within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area can be found in the Comments and Responses section of the Cook Inlet Final 2024 Harvest Specifications for Salmon (starting on page 51450 at 89 FR 51448, June 18, 2024), Section 4.5.1.2.3 of the A16 EA/RIR, Section 4 of the 2025 SAFE report, and Section 3 of the EA for these harvest specifications. No TACs are based on past State management; rather TACs are based on NMFS's independent assessment that, in light of available data, EEZ harvest levels for Tier 3 stocks could not be meaningfully increased beyond historical harvest levels that have prevented overfishing while maintaining a viable commercial fishery. Estimates of past EEZ harvests represent the best scientific information available for Tier 3 stocks regarding the amount of EEZ harvest each stock can support. Finally, NMFS notes that the 2025 TACs established in this final rule represent an increase in potential harvest over what has been harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area compared to the recent 10-year average, as further explained in the response to Comment 9.
As discussed in Section 4.2.6 of the Salmon FMP, buffers between the ABC and TAC may be recommended by the Council to account for management and other sources of uncertainty (50 CFR 679.118(a)(2)) as a possible accountability measure to ensure ACLs are not exceeded, consistent with National Standard 1 (50 CFR 600.310(g)). As per Section 4.2.4 of the Salmon FMP, the ACL is equal to ABC for these salmon stocks. The 2025 harvest specifications do not include any buffers between ABC and TAC because NMFS determined that it was unlikely the fishery would exceed the ACL for any stock or stock complex based on its experience managing the fishery in 2024 (including observed harvest rates) and available inseason management tools (
For Tier 3 stocks, which generally lack sufficient data to inform preseason total run size forecasts, the OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are established based on estimated historical harvests in the EEZ (2025 SAFE report Section 3.3.4; Salmon FMP Section 4.2.4).
Inseason spawning escapement data are not used to establish TACs because TACs must be specified before the fishery opens, but for stocks with established spawning escapement targets, such targets are used to calculate SDC. However, NMFS will consider escapement numbers inseason to inform potential TAC adjustments or early closures in the event of a significant conservation concern.
The final 2025 SAFE report describes the catch statistics for each stock or stock complex. See the responses to Comments 6 and 8 above for further details on the establishment of the 2025 TACs.
NMFS has determined that the 2025 TACs are appropriate for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery, are based on the best scientific information available from the 2025 SAFE report and relevant social and economic considerations consistent with the Salmon FMP (50 CFR 679.118(a)(2)), and will prevent harvest from exceeding the ABC/ACL for any stock or stock complex, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1 guidelines (50 CFR 600.310(f)(1), (2), (3), (4)).
In recommending ABCs, the SSC conducted a review of the final 2025 SAFE report, including calculations for status determination criteria (
As explained in detail in Section 4.2 of the final 2025 SAFE report, in 2024 ADF&G estimated that approximately 58 percent of the sockeye harvested in the EEZ were Kenai River Late-Run sockeye salmon. Additional historical harvest estimates for this stock can be found in Section 4.2 and table 7 of the final 2025 SAFE report.
For each of the sockeye salmon stocks defined in the Salmon FMP (Section 4.2.4), to ensure that overfishing does not occur for any salmon stock harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, the SSC recommended buffers to reduce ABC from OFL, accounting for scientific uncertainty. For the reasons stated above, the Council recommended a single sockeye salmon TAC based on combined ABCs for each of the three sockeye salmon stocks. Based on NMFS's experience managing the fishery in 2024, and in consideration of available inseason management tools, NMFS determined that the combined TAC for sockeye salmon stocks would not result in harvest levels that would exceed the ABC/ACL for any individual stock or stock complex, including the Aggregate Other sockeye salmon stock complex.
The final 2025 SAFE report contains a discussion about spawning escapement estimates for the coho salmon stock complex. The SSC reviewed the final 2025 SAFE report and, after considering the historically low spawning escapements (and harvests) during 2024, recommended an ABC for this stock complex with a large (75 percent) buffer between the preseason OFL and the ABC. After considering recommendations from the SSC and public testimony, the Council recommended a TAC set equal to ABC and NMFS agreed that it could rely on its inseason management tools to avoid exceeding the ABC/ACL for the coho salmon stock complex and that the buffer between OFL and ABC was sufficiently precautionary to prevent overfishing in light of available data and significant scientific uncertainty. The NMFS assessment authors will continue to review and assess available coho salmon spawning escapement data in future years.
NMFS also acknowledges that a test fishery could provide important inseason abundance information to inform inseason management and could provide a platform for conducting genetic and other sampling to inform stock composition in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. However, development of additional data sources are outside the scope of this action.
Consistency with National Standard 1 is addressed in more detail in several responses to comments, including the responses to Comments 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9. In brief, National Standard 1 states that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. Under the National Standard 1 guidelines, OY is prescribed on the basis of MSY. These 2025 harvest specifications result in harvest limits that fall within the OY range established for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, can be achieved, and are expected to prevent overfishing on all stocks.
Consistent with National Standard 2, the data, estimates, and analyses used to conduct the stock assessment analyses and calculate status determination criteria are based upon the best scientific information available and were reviewed by the SSC, which recommend OFLs and ABCs. After considering recommendations by the SSC and public testimony, the Council recommended TACs which NMFS adopts and implements in this final rule. The responses to Comments 5 and 6 provide additional general discussion of the scientific basis of these harvest specifications.
Consistent with National Standard 3, this action manages all salmon stocks as a unit throughout their range to the extent practicable. These specifications establish harvest limits for all salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under NMFS's jurisdiction, while considering all other salmon fishing and management in other jurisdictions. These specifications will ensure that no stocks are subject to overfishing or are overfished, and are consistent with NMFS's obligation to achieve OY on a continuing basis over the long term.
Consistent with National Standard 4, these harvest specifications do not discriminate between residents of different states. The specifications do not allocate or assign any fishing privileges among fishermen. Regardless, these harvest specifications are fair and equitable to all fishery participants by maintaining historical harvest proportions and levels, are reasonably calculated to promote conservation by avoiding overfishing, and ensure that no entity acquires an excessive share of harvest privileges.
National Standard 5 states that conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. This action allows for efficient and historically-consistent commercial drift gillnet harvest of nearly all salmon stocks in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, subject to the constraints of scientific and management uncertainty, weak stock management, allowing for escapement needs, and allowing for a harvestable surplus for other users.
Consistent with National Standard 6, these harvest specifications account for and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches and—as required by the National Standard 6 guidelines—provide “a suitable buffer in favor of conservation” in light of scientific and management uncertainties (see 50 CFR 600.335(c)).
These harvest specifications impose no costs and are not duplicative of any other management measures and are therefore consistent with National Standard 7.
Consistent with National Standard 8, these harvest specifications maintain historical access to the resource for all fishing communities in Cook Inlet, consistent with current conservation conditions, while also preventing overfishing on the stocks or stock complexes caught in fisheries throughout Cook Inlet. This includes maintaining conditions for fishing communities dependent on salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area as well as those dependent on salmon fishing within State of Alaska waters.
Consistent with National Standard 9, this action minimizes bycatch and bycatch mortality by establishing salmon TACs that can be achieved without additional or different fishing effort that would increase bycatch.
Consistent with National Standard 10, this action promotes safety by establishing TACs that can be achieved during the summer period of relatively good weather.
In accordance with 50 CFR 679.118(c)(1)(i), NMFS will prohibit commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area if NMFS determines that any salmon TAC has been or may be reached for any salmon species or stock. NMFS may also make adjustments to a TAC for any salmon species or stock, or open or close a season, in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, if necessary to prevent overfishing among other reasons, consistent with 50 CFR 679.25. NMFS will publish a temporary rule in the
NMFS undertook a thorough review of the relevant comments received during the public comment period. However, for reasons described in the preceding section, NMFS made no changes from the proposed rule.
NMFS is issuing this final rule pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Through previous actions, the Salmon FMP and regulations are designed to authorize NMFS to take this action (see 50 CFR 679.118). The NMFS Assistant
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness for this rule because delaying this rule is contrary to the public interest. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds that the need to establish final total allowable catch amounts in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area makes it contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of the final harvest specifications for 30 days. If the final harvest specifications are not effective by the start of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery as required by 50 CFR 679.118(e), the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery will not be able to open by the start date set in regulation. Immediate effectiveness of the final 2025 harvest specifications will allow the Federal fishery to start on June 19, 2025 (the same day as the State drift gillnet fishery), thus preventing confusion that could occur if the State of Alaska and Federal fisheries opened on different dates, as many vessels participate in both fisheries. In addition, immediate effectiveness of this action is required to provide consistent management and conservation of fishery resources based on the best available scientific information, and to give the fishing industry the earliest possible opportunity to plan fishing operations. These final 2025 harvest specifications, as well as the earlier proposed harvest specifications, were developed as quickly as possible given the availability of essential data and required review. The SSC provided review of the SAFE report at the February 2025 Council meeting, the earliest meeting at which that scientific information was available. Relying on SSC advice, NMFS revised the SAFE report and drafted proposed harvest specifications, which it published on April 4, 2025. NMFS then offered a 32 day public comment period on the proposed harvest specifications, which closed on May 5, 2025. After the close of the comment period, NMFS developed the final harvest specifications as quickly as possible, responding to all comments, to ensure the specifications could be implemented by the June 19, 2025, opening date for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial fishery.
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This final rule is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 14192. To provide for meaningful and timely consultation or engagement in the development of this action, NMFS invited Tribes to participate in consultation or engagement. No Tribes requested consultation or engagement. One Tribe (the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council) submitted a comment letter on the proposed rule and expressed concern over the TAC for Aggregate Other sockeye salmon and the need for inseason genetic sampling as well as a test fishery. Comments submitted by Tribal officials have been addressed in the preamble to the final rule (in Response to Comments), specifically in the response to Comments 12 and 15. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2) of Executive Order 13175 was not required for this final rule because this action does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments and this action does not preempt Tribal law.
NMFS prepared an EA for the 2025 Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery harvest specifications, which incorporates by reference the A16 EA/RIR to the Salmon FMP (see
This action does not modify recordkeeping or reporting requirements or duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.
This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 604) requires an agency that promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). The following constitutes the FRFA prepared for these final 2025 harvest specifications.
Section 604 of the RFA describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) a statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and (6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency that affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
A description of this action, its purpose, and its legal basis are included in the Background section of this final rule and are not repeated here.
NMFS published the proposed rule on April 4, 2025 (90 FR 14771). NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to accompany the proposed action, and included the IRFA in the proposed rule. The comment period closed on May 5, 2025. One commenter expressed support for the continued participation of small entities in the Cook Inlet salmon fishery (see
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments on the proposed rule.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 11411) is classified as a small
This final rule directly regulates commercial salmon fishing vessels that operate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and charter guides and charter businesses fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Because NMFS expects the State of Alaska to maintain current requirements for commercial salmon fishing vessels landing any salmon in Upper Cook Inlet to hold a Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) drift gillnet (S03H) permit, NMFS does not expect participation from non-S03H permit holders in the federally-managed commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Therefore, the number of S03H permit holders represents the maximum number of directly regulated entities for the commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. From 2019 to 2023, there was an annual average of 552 S03H permits in circulation, with an average of 311 active permit holders (based on fish ticket data from CFEC), all of which are considered small entities based on the 11 million dollar threshold. The evaluation of the number of directly regulated small entities and their revenue was conducted via custom query by staff of the Alaska Fish Information Network utilizing both ADF&G and Fish Ticket revenue data and the CFEC permits database. Similarly, the EA (see
The commercial fishing entities directly regulated by these 2025 salmon harvest specifications are the entities operating vessels with Salmon Federal Fisheries Permits (SFFPs) catching salmon in Federal waters. For purposes of this analysis, NMFS assumes that the number of small entities with SFFPs that are directly regulated by the salmon harvest specifications is the average number of S03H permits in circulation (
The commercial charter fishing entities directly regulated by these 2025 salmon harvest specifications are the entities that hold commercial charter licenses and that choose to fish for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area where these harvest specifications will apply. Salmon charter operators are required to register with the State of Alaska annually and the numbers of registered charter operators in the Cook Inlet area varies. Available data indicates that from 2017 to 2022 the annual total number of directly regulated charter vessel small entities that have participated in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area has been as high as 377 permit holders. All of these entities, if they choose to fish in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, are directly regulated by this action and all are considered small entities based on the 9 million dollar threshold.
This action to implement 2025 harvest specifications for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery is taken in accordance with the Salmon FMP and pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The establishment of the harvest specifications is governed by the process described in the Salmon FMP and regulations implementing the Salmon FMP, and specifically provisions on the determination of harvest levels for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (50 CFR 679.118(a) and (b)). Under this process, the OFL, ABC, and TAC must be specified annually for each salmon stock or stock complex. Salmon stocks or stock complexes may be split or combined for purposes of establishing a new harvest specification unit if such action is desirable based on the commercial importance of a stock or stock complex, or if sufficient biological information is available to manage a stock or stock complex as a single unit. Those stocks and stock complexes are separated into three tiers based on the level of information available for each stock and stock complex, and the corresponding tier is used to calculate OFL and ABC.
For each stock and stock complex, NMFS establishes harvest specifications prior to the commercial salmon fishing season. To inform the harvest specifications, NMFS prepares the annual SAFE report, based on the best scientific information available at the time it is prepared, for review by the SSC and the Council. The SAFE report provides information needed for: (1) determining annual harvest specifications; (2) documenting significant trends or changes in the stocks, marine ecosystem, and fisheries over time; and (3) assessing the performance of existing State of Alaska and Federal fishery management programs. The SAFE report provides a summary of the most recent biological condition of the salmon stocks.
For these final 2025 harvest specifications for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, NMFS prepared the preliminary 2025 SAFE report and consulted with the Council, consistent with the Salmon FMP and implementing regulations. The final TACs are based on the final SAFE report, which represents the best scientific information currently available for the stock and stock complexes identified by NMFS. These final TACs have been developed in a manner consistent with the process provided for determining harvest levels in the Salmon FMP and implementing regulations. In light of the manner in which the fishery will operate—including the limited number of fishing periods—and NMFS's ability to monitor the TAC for each salmon species and implement inseason closures as necessary, as well as NMFS's success last year in monitoring and managing the fishery to ensure no ABC was exceeded, NMFS has determined that these TACs will ensure that the ABC (and therefore ACL) for any stock or stock complex is not exceeded and will prevent overfishing. In addition, the TACs for combined sockeye salmon provide sufficient opportunity for harvest and are above the recent 10-year average estimated EEZ harvest.
Under this action, the ABCs reflect harvest amounts that are less than the specified OFLs, and the TACs do not exceed the biological reference points (
This action is economically beneficial to entities operating in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery, including small entities. This action adopts TACs for commercially-valuable salmon stocks at levels that allow for the prosecution of the salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to the extent possible based on the identified uncertainty and other factors discussed above and in response to Comment 16, thereby maximizing the opportunity for fishery revenue, while also preventing overfishing. The TACs for each commercially-valuable salmon stock or stock complex, except for Aggregate coho, are higher than the recent ten-year average catch harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and this increase may allow for additional harvest opportunity. For each salmon species for which NMFS establishes harvest specifications, NMFS determined that the final 2025 TACs will provide harvest opportunities for entities operating in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, including small entities. These TACs cannot be set higher during 2025 because all TACs have been set equal to ABCs (but cannot be set higher than those ABCs) and the biological condition of each species does not support higher ABCs (and therefore TACs). For these reasons, there are no alternative TACs that would reduce impacts to small entities.
Based upon the best scientific information available and in consideration of the objectives for this final action, there are no significant alternatives to this final rule for salmon harvest specifications that have the potential to comply with the Salmon FMP, accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or any other statutes, and minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the action on small entities while preventing overfishing. After a public process during which the Council and NMFS solicited input from stakeholders, and after NMFS issued a proposed rule and considered public comment on the proposed rule, NMFS is implementing the TACs recommended by the Council, as NMFS has determined that would best accomplish the stated objectives articulated in the preamble for this final rule, and in applicable statutes, and that would minimize to the extent practicable adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small entities.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, as amended (Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” This final rule's primary purpose is to establish the final 2025 harvest specifications for the salmon fishery of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Salmon FMP.
The table contained in this final rule is provided online at:
16 U.S.C. 773
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-22-02, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, -300, -800, and -900 series airplanes. AD 2024-22-02 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. Since the FAA issued AD 2024-22-02, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would continue to require certain actions in AD 2024-22-02 and would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 1, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed 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.
Nathan Weigand, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3531; 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 Nathan Weigand, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3531; email:
The FAA issued AD 2024-22-02, Amendment 39-22873 (89 FR 88881, November 12, 2024) (AD 2024-22-02), for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, -300, -800, and -900 series airplanes. AD 2024-22-02 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2024-0011, dated January 10, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0011) (which corresponds to FAA AD 2024-22-02), to correct an unsafe condition.
AD 2024-22-02 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2024-22-02 to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Since the FAA issued AD 2024-22-02, EASA superseded AD 2024-0011 and issued EASA AD 2025-0015, dated January 13, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0015) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, -300, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The MCAI states new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.
Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after November 26, 2024, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0015. This material specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures.
This proposed AD would also require EASA AD 2024-0011, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of December 17, 2024 (89 FR 88881, November 12, 2024).
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 product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2024-22-02. This proposed AD would also require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2025-0015 already described, as proposed for incorporation by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2025-0015 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to retain the Incorporation by Reference (IBR) of EASA AD 2024-0011 and incorporate EASA AD 2025-0015 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0011 and EASA AD 2025-0015 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0011 or EASA AD 2025-0015 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2024-0011 or EASA AD 2025-0015. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0011 and EASA AD 2025-0015 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 126 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2024-22-02 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
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 August 1, 2025.
This AD replaces AD 2024-22-02, Amendment 39-22873 (89 FR 88881, November 12, 2024) (AD 2024-22-02).
This AD applies to Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 26, 2024.
(1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(2) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(4) Model A330-841 airplanes.
(5) Model A330-941 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2024-22-02, with new terminating action. For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before October 20, 2023: 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 2024-0011, dated January 10, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0011). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph (k) of AD 2024-22-02, with no changes.
(1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2024-0011.
(2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0011 specifies revising “the approved AMP,” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after December 17, 2024 (the effective date of AD 2024-22-02).
(3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0011 is at the applicable “associated thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0011, or within 90 days after December 17, 2024 (the effective date of AD 2024-22-02), whichever occurs later.
(4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2024-0011.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0011.
(6) This AD does not require incorporating Section 4, ` “Damage Tolerant—Airworthiness Limitations Items—Tasks Beyond MPPT,” of “the ALS” specified in EASA 2024-0011.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (l) of AD 2024-22-02, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2025-0015, dated January 13, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0015). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2025-0015.
(2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0015 specifies to “revise the AMP” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0015 is at the applicable “associated thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0015, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2025-0015.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0015.
(6) This AD does not require incorporating Section 4, “Damage Tolerant—Airworthiness Limitations Items—Tasks Beyond MPPT”, of “the ALS” specified in EASA 2025-0015.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3531; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following material was approved for IBR on [DATE 35 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0015, dated January 13, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) The following material was approved for IBR on December 17, 2024 (89 FR 88881, November 12, 2024).
(i) EASA AD 2024-0011, dated January 10, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(6) 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.
(7) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2023-25-09, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A318, A319, A320, A321, A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A330-800, A330-900, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. AD 2023-25-09 requires replacing SafeLav gaseous oxygen containers (SLGOCs) affected by a production deficiency and prohibiting the installation of affected SLGOCs. Since the FAA issued AD 2023-25-09, a new airplane model has been certified, on which affected parts could be installed in service. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions in AD 2023-25-09 and would add airplanes to the applicability. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 1, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed 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.
Nicole S. Tsang, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3959; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. 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 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 Nicole S. Tsang, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3959; email:
The FAA issued AD 2023-25-09, Amendment 39-22636 (89 FR 242, January 3, 2024) (AD 2023-25-09), for all Airbus SAS Model A318, A319, A320, A321, A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A330-800, A330-900, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. AD 2023-25-09 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2023-0094, dated May 8, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0094), to correct an unsafe condition.
AD 2023-25-09 requires replacing affected SLGOCs and prohibiting the installation of affected SLGOCs. The FAA issued AD 2023-25-09 to address missing heat treatment of the actuation pin of the SLGOC, which could cause its jamming, with consequent failure of oxygen flow activation. This condition, if not corrected, could prevent supplemental oxygen supply in case of decompression in the cabin/lavatory, possibly resulting in injury to lavatory occupants.
Since the FAA issued AD 2023-25-09, EASA superseded EASA AD 2023-0094 and issued EASA AD 2024-0197, dated October 18, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0197) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model:
• A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes;
• A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes;
• A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes;
• A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -253NY, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes;
• A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343, -841, and -941 airplanes; and
• A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, -542, -642, and -643 airplanes.
Model A320-215, A340-542, and A340-643 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
The MCAI states a new Model, A321-253NY, has been certified, on which affected parts could be installed in service.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2023-25-09, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2023-25-09. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2024-0197, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0197, which specifies procedures for replacing affected SLGOCs and prohibiting the installation of affected SLGOCs. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the 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 is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2024-0197 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2024-0197 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0197 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0197 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2024-0197. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0197 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 2,018 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.
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 August 1, 2025.
This AD replaces AD 2023-25-09, Amendment 39-22636 (89 FR 242, January 3, 2024) (AD 2023-25-09).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -253NY, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes.
(5) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343, -841, and -941 airplanes.
(6) Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by a report that a production deficiency of some SafeLav gaseous oxygen container (SLGOC) batches was identified during production testing of newly manufactured oxygen containers, and by the determination that additional airplanes are affected by the unsafe condition. The FAA is issuing this AD to address missing heat treatment of the actuation pin of the SLGOC, which could cause its jamming, with consequent failure of oxygen flow activation. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in lack of supplemental oxygen supply in case of decompression in the cabin/lavatory, possibly resulting in injury to lavatory occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0197, dated October 18, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0197).
(1) Where EASA AD 2024-0197 refers to “22 May 2023 [the effective date of EASA AD 2023-0094]”, this AD requires using “February 7, 2024 (the effective date of AD 2023-25-09)”.
(2) Where EASA AD 2024-0197 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(3) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0197.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0197 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Nicole S. Tsang, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3959; 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 2024-0197, dated October 18, 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.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E domestic en route airspace (Class E6) within a designated landmass and within 12 miles from a designated coastline associated with the state of Alaska to facilitate the vectoring of instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft on direct routes where the current en route structure is insufficient or improper within the proposed airspace area. Due to redundancy, this action also proposes to remove two Class E6 airspace areas, remove two Class E airspace areas extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, and modify 101 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth (Class E5) to remove any portion extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface due to redundancy. Finally, this action proposes administrative amendments to the legal descriptions of 48 Class E5 airspace areas. This action would support IFR operations while enhancing the safety and management of aircraft operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).
Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2025.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2024-2333 and Airspace Docket No. 24-AAL-111 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3460.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish, modify, and revoke Class E airspace to support IFR operations in the state of Alaska.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Class E5 and Class E6 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6005 and 6006, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
A variety of Class E airspace areas exist over the state of Alaska today. Class E airspace overlies the entirety of the state (and within 12 miles from the coastline) beginning at 14,500 feet above sea level (excluding the Alaska Peninsula west of longitude 160°00′00″ W, and the airspace below 1,500 feet above the surface of the earth when in mountainous terrain greater than 14,500 feet above sea level). Additionally, 101 unique areas of Class E5 airspace with diameters as great as 150 miles, along with two Class E5 airspace areas extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, cover a majority of the state. Furthermore, the state has two Class E6 areas adjacent to the U.S./Canadian Border that also extend upward from 1,200 feet above the surface: one along the northeast boundary of the state and the other along the southeast boundary of the state. The combined 105 Class E airspace areas create redundancy within the NAS. This proposal seeks to simplify and minimize the airspace coverage over the state of Alaska by establishing 1 Class E6 airspace area to replace the 105 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 1,200 feet. In addition, 36 Class E airspace legal descriptions should be modified to update city and airport names, remove unnecessary references, and/or make corrections to language used within.
The FAA previously published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-2333 in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would establish one new Class E domestic en route airspace area, remove two Class E6 airspace areas, remove two Class E5 airspace areas extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, and modify 101 Class E5 airspace areas over the state of Alaska.
By definition, Class E6 airspace is intended for en route operations, and Class E5 airspace is intended for aircraft transitioning to/from terminal or en route environments. The FAA intends to simplify the NAS by establishing a singular, statewide area of Class E6 airspace. A single Class E6 airspace area would better meet the needs of aviators and air traffic control by more appropriately containing aircraft operating on area navigation (RNAV) or direct routes under the control of the FAA facility while simultaneously increasing clearance-from-cloud requirements for aircraft operating under visual flight rules.
In addition, the FAA is proposing to remove the Northeast Alaska Class E6 and Southeast Alaska Class E6 areas, as the proposal would render them redundant if enacted.
Furthermore, two Class E5 airspace areas extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface should be removed as they would also become redundant.
Finally, 101 areas of Class E5 airspace associated with various airports are proposed for removal. The placement and number of Class E5 airspace areas over the state of Alaska creates clutter and confusion amongst the flying public, air traffic control, and within aeronautical charting, while also creating large areas of airspace redundancy. In Alaska, 101 airports have Class E5 airspace legal descriptions that contain airspace extending upward from both 700 feet and 1,200 feet above the surface. The Class E airspace areas extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within the aforementioned 101 descriptions should be removed, to be replaced by the proposed Class E6 airspace. The text header information for 36 of these legal descriptions should be updated to ensure that the city and/or airport names align with the FAA's database, and any reference to navigational aids/components that are no longer needed should be removed. The legal descriptions for the following Class E5 airspace areas should be updated as follows:
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.6-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3°-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.5 miles each side of the 193°-bearing of the Ambler NDB, extending from the 6.3 mile radius to 7.2 miles southwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.0 mile west and 1.2 miles east of the 022° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 23.7 miles north of the airport, and within 2.4 miles west and 1.8 miles east of the 038° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 13 miles northeast of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 233° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 4.5 miles southwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 15.7-mile radius of the Anchorage Air Traffic Control Tower.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport and within 4 miles north and 8 miles south of the 265° bearing of the Aniak NDB to 16 miles west of the NDB and within 2.5 miles each side of the Aniak NDB 113° bearing extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 14.7 miles east of the airport and 4 miles each side of the Aniak Localizer front course extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 14.8 miles northwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.0-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport and within 3 miles each side of the 040° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 14.8 miles north of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.2-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.9 miles either side of the 212° bearing from the airport, extending from the 8.2-mile radius to 11.3 miles southwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 12.4-mile radius of the Buckland Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Cape Lisburne Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the Cape Newenham Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the Cape Romanzof Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.0-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport, beginning where the 82° bearing from the airport intersects the 6.6-mile radius clockwise to the point where the 309° bearing intersects the 6.6-mile radius, thence to the point of beginning and that airspace 2 miles each side of the 113° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 16 miles southeast from the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.1 miles either side of the 206° radial of the Dillingham VOR/DME, extending from the 7-mile radius to 14.1 miles southwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.7 miles either side of the 015° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 12.6 miles north of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles east and 8 miles west of the Emmonak VOR/DME 353° radial extending from the VOR/DME to 16 miles north, and within 4 miles east and 8 miles west of the Emmonak VOR/DME 182° radial extending from the VOR/DME to 16 miles south.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of the airport and within 4 miles north of the 218° bearing from the Fox NDB extending from the NDB to the 6.9-mile radius and within 4 miles east and 8 miles west of the 218° and 038° bearings of the Fox NDB extending from the NDB to 5.3 miles southwest of the NDB and 10.7 miles northeast of the NDB and within 2.5 miles each side of the 068° radial of the Fairbanks VORTAC extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 8.4 miles east of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of the VORTAC, and within 4 miles either side of the 076° bearing from the VORTAC, extending from the 7.2-mile radius of the VORTAC, to 21 miles east of the VORTAC.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.5-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport, within 4.8 miles of each side of the airport's 086° bearing extending to 20.2 miles east of the airport, and within 2.1 miles each side of the airport's 269° bearing extending to 12.2 miles west of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport and within 4 miles each side of the 174° bearing of the NDB/DME extending from the NDB/DME to 23 miles south of the NDB/DME and within 4 miles each side of the NDB/DME 354° bearing extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.6 miles north of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 5-mile radius of the airport, and within 5 miles each side of the 169° bearing from the airport, extending from the 5-mile radius to 24 miles south of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 351° bearing from the airport, extending from the 5-mile radius to 12.5 miles north of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 055° bearing from the airport to 12-miles northeast of the airport, and within 8-miles north and 4.2-miles south of the Kachemak NDB 235° bearing extending from the NDB to 16 miles southwest of the NDB.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles west and 8 miles east of the 200° bearing of the NDB, extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 16 miles south of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius of Indian Mountain Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles east and west of the 031° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.7-mile radius to 11 miles north of the airport.
Bob Baker Memorial Airport, Kiana, AK
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of airport, and within 3.3 miles northeast and 3.2 miles southwest of the 132° bearing extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 9.1 miles southeast of the airport, and within 3.9 miles each side of the 312° bearing extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 13.8 miles northwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport, and 3.9 miles either side of the 317° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 11.1 miles northwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of the airport, and within 8 miles north and 4.1 miles south of the 071° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.9-mile radius and extending from 5.2 miles east of the airport to 21.2 miles east of the airport, excluding that airspace extending beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of the airport, and that airspace 1 mile north and 1 mile south of the 260° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 8.8 miles west of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
Ralph Wien Memorial Airport, AK
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of the airport, and within 8 miles north and 4 miles south of the 088° bearing from the airport, extending from 1.4 miles east of the airport to 17.4 miles east of the airport, and within 4 miles north and 8 miles south of a 276° bearing from the airport, extending from the airport to 14.7 miles west of the airport, excluding that airspace extending beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9-mile radius of the airport and 4 miles west and 8 miles east of the NDB 210° bearing extending from the 9-mile radius to 17 miles southwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 078° bearing extending from the airport's 6.5-mile radius to 9.5 miles east of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile radius of the airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 001° bearing from the airport, extending from the 8.1-mile radius to 15.7 miles north of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 038° radial of the VOR/DME extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 12 miles northeast of the VOR/DME.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 25-mile radius of the airport excluding that airspace beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8-mile radius of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 077° radial from the airport, extending from the 8-mile radius to 13.7 miles east of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the heliport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the heliport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 5-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 14.7-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport and within 3 miles each side of the 207° bearing of the NDB extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.3 miles southwest of the airport and within 3 miles either side of the NDB 017° bearing extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.9 miles northeast of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.5 miles either side of the 180° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 13.2 miles south of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles north and 8 miles south of the 248° bearing of the NDB extending from the NDB to 20
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 11-mile radius of the airport, and extending 2 miles either side of a line from 66°55′50″ N, 150°32′43″ W; to 67°02′47″ N, 150°34′16″ W; extending beyond the 11-mile radius, and 4.5 miles east and 4 miles west of the 214° bearing from the airport extending from the 11-mile radius to 13 miles southwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 11-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 219° bearing from the airport extending from the 11-mile radius to 14.5 miles southwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 051° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 20.3 miles northeast of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.2-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 059° bearing of the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11 miles northeast of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 099° bearing of the airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 11 miles east of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport and within 4 miles southeast and 8 miles northwest of the 245° bearing from the NDB extending from the NDB to 16 miles southwest and within 4 miles southeast and 8 miles northeast of the NDB 061° bearing from the NDB extending from the NDB to 16 miles northeast of the NDB.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10.1-mile radius of the airport and within 2.4 miles either side of the 270° bearing of the airport, extending from the 10.1-mile radius to 11 miles west of the airport, and within 3.5 miles either side of the 090° bearing of the airport extending from the 10.1-mile radius to 14.3 miles east of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3-mile radius of the Sparrevohn LRRS.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.4-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport and within 3.8 miles each side of the 190° radial of the VOR/DME extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 14.4 miles south of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.9 miles each side of the airport's 101° bearing extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.5 miles east of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport, and within 2 miles southwest and 3.4 miles northeast of the 149° radial from airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.8 miles southeast of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the Tin City LRRS.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the airport beginning at the 360° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 260° bearing of the airport, and within a 13.5-mile radius of the airport beginning at the 260° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 360° bearing of the airport, and within 6 miles each side of the airport 185° bearing of the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 10 miles south of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.1 miles each side of the localizer front course extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 12.8 miles southwest of the localizer.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.9 miles either side of the 062° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.1 miles northeast of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.5-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.35-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 5.6-mile radius of the airport, within five miles on either side of the 151° bearing extending from the 5.6-mile radius to 9.5 miles southeast of the airport, within 5.6 miles on the southwest side of the 320° bearing extending from the 5.6-mile radius to 11.8 miles northwest of the airport, and within 5.6 miles on the northeast side of the 320° bearing extending from the 5.6-mile radius to 13.5 miles northwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within the area bounded by lat. 59°47′42″ N, long, 139°58′48″ W, to lat. 59°37′33″ N, long. 139°40′54″ W, then along the 7-mile radius of the VOR/DME clockwise to lat. 59°28′54″ N, long. 139°25′36″ W, to lat. 59°20′16″ N, long. 139°10′20″ W, to lat. 59°02′49″ N, long. 139°47′45″ W, to lat. 59°30′15″ N, long. 140°36′43″ W, to the point of beginning, excluding that area beyond 12 miles from the shoreline within the Gulf of Alaska Low Control Area.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within the boundary of the state of Alaska including the offshore airspace to 12 NM of the shoreline, excluding that airspace west of longitude 160°00′00″ W, extending upward from 14,500 feet MSL, and that airspace within restricted areas R-2201A, R-2201B, R-2202A, R-2202B, R-2203A, R-2203B, R-2203C, R-2204 Low, R-2205A, R-2205B, R-2205C, R-2205D, R2205E, R-2206A, R-2206B, R-2206D, and R-2211 when active.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
Draft FAA Notice N 8100.20 would incorporate the requirements of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, which directs the FAA to ensure that each ODA holder has in effect a recurrent training program for all ODA unit personnel.
Send comments on or before July 17, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2025-0092, using any of the following methods:
Mr. Scott Geddie, Policy and Oversight Integration Section, AVS-64, AVS ODA Office, Federal Aviation Administration, by telephone at 405-954-6897 or by email at
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Public Law 118-63 (2024) (the Act), amended Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 44736 by imposing several provisions specific to the FAA's oversight of ODA holders. Section 304 of the Act added paragraph (g), Ethics Training Requirement for ODA Holders, to 49 U.S.C. 44736. Paragraph (g) requires the FAA to ensure that each ODA holder has in effect a recurrent training program, reviewed by the FAA, for all ODA unit personnel. Paragraph (g) also requires all ODA unit personnel to complete such ethics training within sixty days of appointment and annually thereafter and requires the FAA to establish the necessary processes to ensure that this training occurs. Draft Notice N 8100.20 would implement the new statutory requirement for ODA holders to develop and provide, and for all ODA unit personnel to take, initial and recurrent ethics training. The FAA intends that the policies contained in draft Notice N 8100.20 will be incorporated into a future revision of FAA Order 8100.15, Organization Designation Authorization Procedures.
Draft Notice N 8100.20 would affect all ODA holders. You may examine draft Notice N 8100.20 and an optional comment log template that may be helpful for providing comments in the docket or at:
The FAA invites the public to submit comments on draft Notice N 8100.20, as specified in the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of withdrawal of proposed rules.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is formally withdrawing certain notices of proposed rulemaking issued between March 2022 and November 2023. The Commission does not intend to issue final rules with respect to these proposals. If the Commission decides to pursue future regulatory action in any of these areas, it will issue a new proposed rule.
The Commission is withdrawing the proposed rules published at 87 FR 45052 (July 27, 2022), 88 FR 53960 (August 9, 2023), 88 FR 14672 (March 9, 2023), 87 FR 13524 (March 9, 2022), 87 FR 36654 (June 17, 2022), 87 FR 68816 (November 16, 2022), 88 FR 41338 (June 26, 2023), 88 FR 76282 (November 6, 2023), 88 FR 5440 (January 27, 2023), 88 FR 128 (January 3, 2023), 88 FR 23146 (April 14, 2023), 88 FR 20212 (April 5, 2023), 87 FR 15496 (Mar. 18, 2022), and 85 FR 65990 (Oct. 16, 2020) as of June 17, 2025.
The Commission is withdrawing the notices of proposed rulemaking described below. The Commission does not intend to issue final rules with respect to these proposals. If the Commission decides to pursue future regulatory action in any of these areas, it will issue a new proposed rule.
On July 27, 2022, the Commission published a rule proposal that would have amended certain substantive bases for exclusion of shareholder proposals under the Commission's shareholder proposal rule.
On August 9, 2023, the Commission published proposed new rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) to, among other things, address certain interactions between broker-dealers or investment advisers and investors through these firms' use of predictive data analytics.
On March 9, 2023, the Commission published a proposed new rule under the Advisers Act to address how investment advisers safeguard client assets.
On March 9, 2022, the Commission published proposed new rules and forms and amendments to existing forms under the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) to require registered investment advisers and investment companies to adopt and implement written cybersecurity policies and procedures reasonably designed to address cybersecurity risks, disclose information about cybersecurity risks and incidents, report information confidentially to the Commission about certain cybersecurity incidents, and maintain related records.
On June 17, 2022, the Commission published proposed amendments to rules and forms under both the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act to require, among other things, registered investment advisers, certain advisers that are exempt from registration, registered investment companies, and business development companies, to provide additional information regarding their environmental, social, and governance investment practices.
On November 16, 2022, the Commission published a proposed new
On February 4, 2022, the Commission published a release proposing new rules 9j-1 and 10B-1 under the Exchange Act, as well as amendments to rule 15Fh-4 (later redesignated rule 15fh-4) under the Exchange Act.
On November 6, 2023, the Commission published a proposed new rule under the Exchange Act to prohibit national securities exchanges from offering volume-based transaction pricing in connection with the execution of agency-related orders in NMS stocks.
On January 27, 2023, the Commission published proposed new rules under the Exchange Act relating to a broker-dealer's duty of best execution.
On January 3, 2023, the Commission published a rule proposal to, among other things, amend the regulation governing the national market system under the Exchange Act to add a new rule prohibiting a “restricted competition trading center” from internally executing certain orders of individual investors at a price unless the orders are first exposed to competition at that price in a qualified auction operated by an open “competition trading center,” subject to limited exceptions.
On April 14, 2023, the Commission published proposed amendments to Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (“Regulation SCI”) under the Exchange Act.
On April 5, 2023, the Commission published a proposed new rule and form and amendments to existing rules to, among other things, require broker-dealers, clearing agencies, major security-based swap participants, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, national securities associations, national securities exchanges, security-based swap data repositories, security-based swap dealers, and transfer agents to address cybersecurity risks through policies and procedures, immediate notification to the Commission of the occurrence of a significant cybersecurity incident and, as applicable, reporting detailed information to the Commission about a significant cybersecurity incident, and public disclosures.
On March 18, 2022, the Commission published proposed amendments to rule 3b-16 under the Exchange Act, which defines certain terms used in the statutory definition of “exchange” under section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act to include systems that offer the use of non-firm trading interest and communication protocols to bring together buyers and sellers of securities.
On October 16, 2020, the Commission published proposed amendments to the national market system plan governing
We are withdrawing these proposals because, as noted above, we no longer intend to issue final rules with respect to these proposals. If the Commission decides to pursue future regulatory action in any of these areas, it will do so by publishing a new proposed rule or other issuance consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, as applicable.
By the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a special local regulation for navigable waters within Oak Harbor Bay, Oak Harbor, WA. The regulated area shall be closed immediately prior to, during and immediately after the annual event to all persons and vessels not participating in the event and authorized by the event sponsor. Due to the potential safety hazards associated with hydroplane races, entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound (COTP) or designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 17, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2025-0323 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Anthony Pinto, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6051, email
The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking for hydroplane races held annually in Oak Harbor Bay, Oak Harbor, WA. The event will be held this year on August 16, 2025 and August 17, 2025. Under 46 U.S.C. 70041, the Coast Guard Thirteenth District Commander has authority to promulgate certain special local regulations deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and immediately after an approved regatta or marine parade. The District Commander has determined these regulations are needed on the navigable waters within this special local regulation during the hydroplane races to ensure the safety of the public, official participants, and spectator vessels near the race area.
This rule would establish a regulated area from 10 a.m. through 7 p.m. each day of the event. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters within Oak Harbor Bay starting at position 48.2868946, −122.6466818 thence eastward to 48.2869390, −122.6466245, thence south to 48.2814501, −122.6359595, thence westward to 48.2811168, −122.6454318 and returning to the starting point. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the marine event is taking place. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or designated representative. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or designated representative by calling the Sector Command Center at 206-217-6002 or via VHF Marine Radio on Channel 16. Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or designated representative. The COTP would provide notice of the enforcement of this special local regulation by Notice of Enforcement in the
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This regulatory action determination is based on a limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the restricted area. Although this rule restricts access to the water of the encompassed area, the effect of this rule would not be significant because the local waterway users would be notified to minimize impact. Additionally, vessels desiring to transit through or around the restricted area could do so upon expressed permission from the COTP or designated representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation of limited size and duration which would be in active use by event participants during the two-day, 9 hour enforcement period. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or designated representative by calling the Sector Puget Sound Command Center at 206-217-6002 or via VHF Marine Radio on Channel 16. Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or designated representative.
(3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through advanced notice via announcement in the local notice to mariners, broadcast notice to mariners, and by on-scene designated representatives.
(d) Notice of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
In this action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to repeal specific amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs), commonly referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), that were promulgated on May 7, 2024. The amendments that the EPA is proposing to repeal include the revised filterable particulate matter (fPM) emission standard, which serves as a surrogate for non-mercury hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals for existing coal-fired EGUs; the revised fPM emission standard compliance demonstration requirements; and the revised mercury (Hg) emission standard for lignite-fired EGUs.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For questions about this proposed action, contact Sarah Benish, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5620; and email address:
The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day following publication of this document in the
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to submit a copy of their oral testimony as written comments electronically to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at
If you require a special accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by June 24, 2025. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
The
Throughout this proposal, the EPA is soliciting comment on numerous aspects of the proposed rule. The EPA has indexed each comment solicitation with an identifier (
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services (
On May 7, 2024, the EPA finalized amendments to the MATS Rule (89 FR 38508) (hereinafter “2024 Final Action”). On March 12, 2025, EPA Administrator Zeldin announced that the Agency would undertake 31 deregulatory actions to Power the Great American Comeback.
In this action, the EPA is proposing to repeal the following amendments from the 2024 Final Action:
• The filterable particulate matter (fPM) emission standard for existing coal-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs), which the EPA revised from 0.030 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) to 0.010 lb/MMBtu;
• The compliance demonstration requirement for the fPM emission standard for all coal- and oil-fired EGUs, which the EPA revised from allowing EGU owners and operators to choose between use of quarterly stack testing, use of continuous parametric monitoring systems (CPMS), or use of PM continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) to only allowing use of PM CEMS; and
• The Hg emission standard for existing lignite-fired EGUs, which the EPA revised from 4.0 pounds per trillion British thermal units (lb/TBtu) to 1.2 lb/TBtu.
The EPA previously, in 2020, finalized the statutorily required residual risk and technology review (RTR) for MATS (hereinafter “2020 Final Action”, 85 FR 31286, May 22, 2020). The amendments in the 2024 Final Action were the result of the EPA's review of the 2020 Final Action and were finalized under the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d)(6) provisions governing technology reviews.
The EPA has reevaluated the 2024 Final Action and proposes to find that the revisions of the emissions standards that were finalized in the 2024 Final Action were not necessary as they impose large compliance costs or raise potential technical feasibility concerns. Specifically, the EPA proposes to find that the cost-effectiveness values associated with the revised fPM emission standard (
The EPA estimates that this proposed action would result in total cost savings of $1 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and $770 million at a 7 percent discount rate over the 2028 to 2037 timeframe, with total annualized cost savings of $120 and $110 million per year, respectively (in 2024 dollars). More information about the estimated costs and benefits of the regulated pollutants of this proposed action can be found in section V.A of this preamble.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at:
A memorandum showing the rule edits that would be necessary to incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU proposed in this action is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also will post a copy of this document to
The EPA promulgated the NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-Fired EGUs, commonly referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards or MATS, on February 16, 2012 (2012 MATS Final Rule). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU. Coal- and oil-fired EGUs are combustion units of more than 25 megawatts (MW) that serve a generator that produces electricity for sale and are located at both major and area sources of HAP emissions.
The 2020 Final Action included two separate elements. First, the 2020 Final Action included a finding that it is not “appropriate and necessary,” pursuant to CAA section 112(n)(1)(A),
The 2020 Residual Risk Review results, along with our decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects, were presented in the 2020 Final Action. The results of the risk assessment are provided briefly in table 1, and in more detail in the document titled
The 2020 Final Action also presented results of the 2020 Technology Review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that occurred since promulgation of the 2012 MATS Final Rule. Control technologies typically used to minimize emissions of pollutants that have numeric emission limits under the 2012 MATS Final Rule include electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and fabric filters (FFs) for control of fPM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals; wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers, and dry sorbent injection for control of acid gases (SO
Executive Order 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis” (86 FR 7037, January 25, 2021), instructed the EPA to review the 2020 Final Action and to consider publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking suspending, revising, or rescinding that action. The EPA reviewed the finding in the 2020 Final Action that it was not appropriate and necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired EGUs under CAA section 112 and, on February 9, 2022, proposed to find that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired EGUs under CAA section 112 (87 FR 7624). The EPA finalized the affirmative finding on March 6, 2023 (88 FR 13956).
On April 24, 2023, the EPA proposed the results of the review of the RTR from the 2020 Final Action (2023 Proposal).
The EPA's 2023 review of the 2020 Technology Review included evaluating the technology review described in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794-0015 and focused on the identification of any developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the finalization of the 2012 MATS Final Rule and since publishing the 2020 Technology Review. Based on this review, the EPA concluded in the 2023 Proposal that revisions to certain standards were warranted. The EPA proposed three changes resulting from the review of the 2020 Technology Review. First, the EPA proposed to revise the existing coal-fired EGU fPM emissions standard, which is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals, from 0.030 lb/MMBtu to 0.010 lb/MMBtu and proposed corresponding reductions in the alternative emission standards for total and individual non-Hg HAP metals. Second, the EPA proposed to require that all coal- and oil-fired EGUs demonstrate compliance with the applicable fPM emission standard by using PM CEMS. Third, the EPA proposed to revise the Hg emission standard for lignite-fired EGUs from 4.0 lb/TBtu to 1.2 lb/TBtu with an alternative output-based standard of 0.013 lb/gigawatt-hour (GWh). All those proposed changes were ultimately finalized in the 2024 Final Action.
Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” (90 FR 8353, January 29, 2025), specified that it is the policy of the United States to “protect the United States's economic and national security and military preparedness by ensuring that an abundant supply of reliable energy is readily accessible in every State and territory of the Nation” and “to ensure that all regulatory requirements related to energy are grounded in clearly applicable law” (among others). The Executive order directed the heads of all agencies to review all existing regulations to identify agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resource, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources. Agencies were directed to suspend, revise, or rescind all agency actions identified as unduly burdensome. Executive Order 14154 also revoked Executive Order 13990.
On April 8, 2025, President Trump signed a Proclamation, “Regulatory Relief for Certain Stationary Sources to Promote American Energy” (90 FR 16777, April 21, 2025). This Proclamation exempted certain stationary sources, identified in Annex 1 of the Proclamation, from compliance with the 2024 Final Action. The President's exemption is for a period of 2 years beyond the 2024 Final Action's compliance date (
In response to these and other recent Presidential Actions,
The EPA's ability to revisit existing regulations under CAA section 112 is well-grounded in law. Specifically, the EPA has authority to reconsider, repeal, or revise past decisions to the extent permitted by law so long as the Agency provides a reasoned explanation.
The EPA presents its proposed review of the amendments from the 2024 Final Action below. Section III.A.1 presents the EPA's proposed review of the fPM standard for coal-fired EGUs, and the proposed review of the fPM compliance demonstration requirements is provided in section III.A.2. Section III.A.3 presents the EPA's proposed review of the Hg standard for lignite-fired EGUs. The EPA solicits comment on all aspects of these proposed reviews.
In the 2024 Final Action, the EPA finalized a more stringent fPM emission standard, which serves as a surrogate for the non-Hg HAP metals. The fPM standard was lowered from 0.030 lb/MMBtu to 0.010 lb/MMBtu for all existing coal-fired EGUs. The 2024 Final Action also proportionally lowered the individual and total non-Hg HAP metal emission limits. Filterable PM was chosen as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals in the 2012 MATS Final Rule because non-Hg HAP metals are predominantly a component of the filterable fraction of total PM (which is composed of a filterable and condensable fraction) and control of fPM results in a co-reduction of non-Hg HAP metals.
In the 2024 Final Action, the EPA found there were developments in practices, processes, and control technologies to reduce fPM emissions, that the costs to comply with the more stringent fPM standard based on these developments were reasonable, and that the revised standard appropriately balanced the EPA's obligation under CAA section 112 to achieve the maximum degree of emission reductions considering statutory factors. As in previous CAA section 112 rulemakings, the EPA considered costs in many ways, including cost effectiveness, the total capital costs of proposed measures, annual costs, and costs compared to total revenues. In addition, in the 2024 Final Action, the EPA found most existing coal-fired EGUs were reporting fPM levels that were well below the previous 0.030 lb/MMBtu emission limit
In this action, the EPA is proposing to repeal lowering the fPM standard to 0.010 lb/MMBtu for coal-fired EGUs, as well as the proportional lowering of the total and individual non-Hg HAP metal limits because of the high costs of the revised standard, both in terms of cost effectiveness, a common metric the EPA considers in CAA section 112(d)(6) technology reviews, and total costs. As the EPA noted in the 2024 Final Action, the EPA considers costs in various ways, depending on the rule and affected sector. For example, the EPA has considered, in previous CAA section 112 rulemakings, cost effectiveness, the total capital costs of measures, annual costs, and the costs compared to total revenues (
In the 2024 Final Action, the EPA found the cost-effectiveness estimate for EGUs reporting average fPM rates above the final fPM emission limit of 0.010 lb/MMBtu was $10.5 million per ton of non-Hg HAP metals and $34,500/ton of fPM.
• In the Petroleum Refinery Sector technology review,
• In the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities technology review,
The high value of the cost effectiveness of the revised fPM limit as compared to other NESHAP rulemakings is further illustrated by the significant costs to certain facilities, which carried cost-effectiveness values far exceeding the fleet average that the EPA estimated for the revised fPM standard. For example, the Colstrip Power Plant, a two-unit 1,500 MW subbituminous-fired power plant located in Colstrip, Montana, was the only facility unable to meet the lower fPM standard with existing controls based on the EPA's analysis. The EPA projected that each unit at the Colstrip facility would need to install a new FF to comply with the revised fPM standard. Based on the EPA's estimate, the units at this facility accounted for almost half of the 2024 Final Action's total compliance costs, which the EPA estimated would result in a cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding $16 million per ton of non-Hg HAP metals removed at the Colstrip facility. By comparison, in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing technology review,
Upon reconsideration, the EPA is proposing to repeal the more stringent fPM standard and corresponding total and individual HAP metal standards that were promulgated in the 2024 Final Action because the cost effectiveness of the revised standard is inconsistent with the EPA's prior technology review determinations. The EPA recognized differences between the power sector and the other industries regulated in the above-mentioned technology reviews in the 2024 Final Action and determined that despite the high cost-effectiveness ratio, the revised standards were still cost reasonable for the industry. The EPA is now reconsidering that judgment and proposes to find that despite developments recognized in the 2024 Final Action, the costs for the power sector to achieve the revised standard are too high, such that the revised standard is not necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6). If finalized, the fPM and corresponding total and individual HAP metal emission standards would revert to the standards that were promulgated in the 2012 MATS Final Rule (
The 2012 MATS Final Rule specified that EGU owners and operators could choose either quarterly stack testing, PM CPMS, or PM CEMS, to demonstrate compliance with the fPM emission standard. All three options were determined to be appropriate and sufficient for demonstrating compliance with the fPM emission standard. The EPA's review of MATS compliance reporting for the 2023 Proposal showed that the owners and operators of approximately one-third of coal-fired EGUs were using PM CEMS for compliance demonstration purposes (88 FR 24872). In the 2023 Proposal, the EPA stated that the costs for PM CEMS had decreased compared to the costs estimated in the 2012 MATS Final Rule. In addition, the revised fPM limit of 0.010 lb/MMBtu for coal-fired units would have required longer duration runs for EPA Method 5 stack testing and may have required the use of EPA Method 5I, which would have increased the costs for quarterly stack testing, making the stack testing costs commensurate with the reduced costs for PM CEMS (88 FR 24873). The EPA also argued in the 2023 Proposal and 2024 Final Action that PM CEMS provide increased transparency and access to emissions data, which was an unquantifiable benefit to operators of affected sources and to the public. In the 2024 Final Action, the EPA stated that information provided by public commenters indicated that the average annual cost for quarterly stack testing is about $12,000 less than the equivalent uniform annual cost for PM CEMS, but the benefits of emissions transparency and access to emissions data outweighed the cost difference between
As discussed in section III.A.1, the EPA is proposing to repeal the more stringent fPM emission standard. If this change to the fPM standard is finalized, the EPA's conclusion in the 2023 Proposal and 2024 Final Action that the costs for PM CEMS are commensurate with the costs for stack testing would no longer apply because longer duration runs that increase stack testing costs would no longer be necessary. Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the requirements. Further, the EPA finds additional authority to allow multiple compliance demonstration options under CAA section 114(a)(1)(C), which allows that the EPA may require a facility that “may have information necessary for the purposes set forth in this subsection, or who is subject to any requirement of this chapter” to “install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment” on a “one-time, periodic or continuous basis.”
The 2024 Final Action requirement to use PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance meant that up to two-thirds of EGU owners and operators would face higher compliance costs than they have previously incurred when allowed to use quarterly stack testing or PM CPMS. As shown in more detail in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA), the EPA estimates a cost savings of $2.8 million per year related to the proposed repeal of the PM CEMS requirement. While the EPA noted in the 2023 Proposal that the use of PM CEMS would allow for more efficient pollutant abatement and more transparency of EGU emissions, the EPA no longer believes that those advantages outweigh the increased cost of PM CEMS compared to the two other compliance options (
The EPA also proposes to reinstate the low emitting EGU (LEE) program for fPM and non-Hg HAP metals, which reduces the stack testing frequency for sources that have demonstrated that their emissions are less than 50 percent of the corresponding emission limit for 3 consecutive years. Sources that had previously demonstrated that they qualify for LEE status would not have to re-demonstrate that qualification. In the 2024 Final Action, the EPA found that the optional LEE program was “superfluous” due to the PM CEMS requirement and the revised fPM emission standard (89 FR 38510, May 7, 2025). However, as the EPA is proposing to repeal these requirements, reinstating the LEE program for fPM and non-Hg HAP metals would further reduce the costs associated with stack testing for sources that opt-in, while still assuring compliance with the emission standard.
Finally, the EPA also proposes to retain the updated fPM measurement requirements of allowing either an increased minimum volume per run or the collection of a minimum mass per run.
In the 2012 MATS Final Rule, the EPA promulgated a beyond-the-floor standard for Hg for the subcategory of existing coal-fired units designed for “low rank” virgin coal (
The 2024 Final Action lowered the Hg standard for lignite-fired EGUs from 4.0 lb/TBtu to 1.2 lb/TBtu based on the EPA's determination that commercially available control technologies and improved methods of operation would allow lignite-fired EGUs to meet a more stringent emission standard. The more stringent Hg emission standard brought the requirement for lignite-fired EGUs in line with the emission limitation requirements of EGUs firing all other types of coal. In the 2024 Final Action, the EPA reviewed coal composition information and concluded that the Hg content, the halogen content, and the alkalinity were similar between various lignite and subbituminous coals. In 2021, EGUs firing subbituminous coal emitted Hg at an average annual rate of 0.6 lb Hg/TBtu with measured values as low as 0.1 lb/TBtu, which demonstrated that EGUs burning subbituminous coal have utilized control options to meet the 1.2 lb/TBtu emission standard despite the challenges presented by the low halogen content in the coal (which results in production of difficult-to-control elemental Hg vapor in the flue gas stream) (88 FR 24880). Cost-effectiveness estimates for a model 800 MW lignite-fired EGU using a range of sorbent injection rates to meet the revised Hg emission standard were lower or consistent with cost-effectiveness values for Hg controls that the EPA has found to be acceptable in previous rulemakings.
After reviewing the revised emission standard that was promulgated in the 2024 Final Action, the EPA is proposing to repeal the revised Hg emission limit for lignite-fired EGUs because the revised standard was based on insufficient available data demonstrating that lignite units can meet the lower limit over the range of boiler types and variable compositions of fuels used at lignite-fired EGUs.
Furthermore, the Twin Oaks facility, constructed in the early 1990s, is one of the newest lignite units and uses a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustor, which affects its Hg emissions. Conventional boilers use coal that is pulverized to a very fine particle size to maximize combustion efficiency and to minimize unburned carbon. In contrast, the design of CFB combustors permits the burning of larger-sized coal particles. Fluidized bed units typically operate at lower temperatures compared to conventional boilers and have longer fuel residence times. As a result, CFB combustors typically have higher levels of unburned carbon present in the fly ash. The unburned carbon particles behave much like injected activated carbon sorbent and, coupled with the lower operating temperature and longer residence time, can promote more efficient Hg removal as compared to that observed from units using non-CFB boilers using conventional pulverized coal combustors.
Other lignite-fired EGUs that utilize a CFB combustor also had generally lower Hg emission rates. For instance, the 2022 measured Hg rates reported in the 2024 Final Rule for the Red Hills facility in Mississippi, which also employs CFB combustors, was 1.7 lb/TBtu, compared to a range of 2.5-3.0 lb/TBtu for other lignite-fired EGUs in the southern U.S. (89 FR 38548). Additionally, the lowest 2022 Hg emissions from lignite-fired facilities in North Dakota were found at Spiritwood Station, which also utilizes a CFB combustor. In revising the Hg emission standard for lignite-fired EGUs in the 2024 Final Action, the EPA failed to evaluate the achievability of the revised Hg emission standard by affected sources that are not using the better performing CFB combustor technology.
In addition, the EPA assumed that the revised Hg standard of 1.2 lb/TBtu could be met by injecting better performing powdered sorbents using existing sorbent injection systems without the need for equipment modifications or additions. However, industry commenters noted that existing equipment at lignite-fired power plants may not be able to achieve the 1.2 lb/TBtu Hg limit and that demonstration testing would be required to determine a sorbent dosage rate, guaranteed injection rate, and the emissions rate that can be achieved when considering the Hg content variability of the lignite. Commenters claimed that modifications to Hg control systems may be required in order to meet the 1.2 lb/TBtu emission limit. The EPA did not consider such cost in the final analysis.
Lastly, the Agency did not sufficiently investigate the complex composition of lignite coals, including the variability of the Hg content in the inlet fuel source and the corresponding reductions needed to comply with the 1.2 lb/TBtu Hg emission standard. In the 2023 Proposal, the EPA explained how the halogen content of coal influences the oxidation state of Hg in the flue gas stream and thus the partitioning of Hg into elemental Hg vapor, oxidized Hg vapor, or particle-bound Hg, which impacts Hg control approaches (78 FR 24875). Lignites and subbituminous coals have lower halogen content compared to bituminous coals and the Hg in the flue gas from boilers firing those fuels tends to stay in the elemental vapor state, which is more challenging to control. The EPA noted that pre-halogenated (typically brominated) sorbents have been effectively utilized to control Hg emissions at power plants firing low-halogen content subbituminous coals. However, the EPA also noted that lignite
In addition, stakeholders provided data challenging the assumed inlet value of 25.0 lb/TBtu used in modeling in the 2024 Final Action. For example, historical data indicate that lignite seams near the San Miguel plant in Texas result in coal feeds that have an average Hg inlet content of 34.0 lb/TBtu (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794-5965). As a result, San Miguel would need to achieve an average control rate of 96.3 percent to meet the new standard (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794-5965). Additionally, monthly fluctuations in Hg content could require even higher control levels at least half the time. Ignoring monthly variability not only leads to an underestimation of costs associated with Hg removal but also overlooks control device modifications and enhancements required to achieve pollution control levels exceeding 90 percent. For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to repeal the Hg emission limit for lignite-fired EGUs that was promulgated in the 2024 Final Action and revert to the Hg emission limit—4.0 lb/TBtu—that was promulgated in the 2012 MATS Final Rule. The EPA solicits comment on the proposed repeal of the more stringent Hg standard for lignite-fired EGUs because of insufficient data demonstrating the standard can be met by lignite-fired EGUs with a range of boiler types and variable fuel composition (Question #6). Additionally, the EPA solicits comment on if there are alternative cost-effective and achievable Hg standards for lignite-fired EGUs that are based on developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that we should consider instead of repealing the 1.2 lb/TBtu standard (Question #7).
Under CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA is required “to review, and revise
In addition, the EPA solicits comment on whether a technology review conducted under CAA section 112(d)(6) should take into consideration whether any meaningful risk reduction would be obtained from further reducing HAP emissions under the technology review. As stated in section II, the 2020 Residual Risk Review found the residual risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from the Coal- and Oil-Fired EGU source category and determined that the current NESHAP (as promulgated in the 2012 MATS Final Rule) provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
In proposing to repeal amendments to MATS introduced in the 2024 Final Action, the EPA is considering reliance interests of impacted stakeholders.
The EPA solicits comments on all aspects of this proposed action. A summary of questions for which the EPA invites specific comment is listed below. The EPA requests commenters number their responses with the question number when responding to each question.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at
This action is a significant action under E.O. 12866 Section 3(f)(1) that was submitted to the OMB for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis,
We present the estimated present values (PV) and equivalent annualized values (EAV) of the estimated cost savings of repealing the 2024 Final Action in 2024 dollars over the 2028 to 2037 period, discounted to 2025. In addition, the Agency presents the assessment for specific snapshot years, consistent with historic practice. These snapshot years are 2028, 2030, and 2035. The power industry's cost savings are represented in this analysis as the change in electric power generation costs due to the repeal of the 2024 Final Action requirements. In simple terms, these cost savings are an estimate of the decreased power industry expenditures resulting from the repeal of the 2024 Final Action requirements.
Under this proposed action, the 2024 Final Action would no longer reduce emissions of Hg and non-Hg HAP metals as projected in the 2024 MATS RTR RIA.
Table 2 presents the estimated cost savings of this proposed action in 2024 dollars discounted to 2025. This table presents the PV and EAV of these estimates discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent.
The full benefit-cost analysis, which is contained in the RIA for this rulemaking, is consistent with Executive Order 12866 and is available in the docket.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2137.12. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The information collection activities in this rule include performance testing, continuous emission monitoring, notifications and periodic reports, recording information, monitoring and the maintenance of records. The information generated by these activities will be used by the EPA to ensure that affected facilities comply with the emission limits and other requirements. Records and reports are necessary to enable delegated authorities to identify affected facilities that may not be in compliance with the requirements. Based on reported information, delegated authorities will decide which units and what records or processes should be inspected. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). The following burden and cost estimates represent the total burden and cost for the information collection requirements of the NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-Fired EGUs assuming the repeal of the amendments is finalized.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at
The EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule relieves regulatory burden on the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed action would lead to reduction in EAV of costs over the 2028 to 2037 timeframe of about $120 and $110 million per year at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. Additionally, in the 2024 MATS RTR RIA, the EPA identified 45 potentially affected EGUs owned by 24 small entities that would together incur compliance costs of about $2.4 million (in 2024 dollars) in 2028, the year of compliance. Of these small entities, one was projected to incur compliance cost reductions greater than 1 percent of baseline revenue, and two were projected to incur compliance cost increases greater than 1 percent (relative to a baseline without the requirements). The remaining 23 entities were not projected to experience compliance cost changes of more than 1 percent. Under the proposed repeal, these projected compliance cost changes for small entities will be avoided. Consequently, the EPA expects that this deregulatory action, if finalized as proposed, would relieve the regulatory burden for facilities that, absent this proposed repeal, would be affected by the provisions from the 2024 Final Action. As a result, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The costs involved in this action are estimated not to exceed $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
This action does not have federalism implications. 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.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the action.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA will engage in consultation with tribal officials during the development of this action.
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. Emissions from this source category include HAP like Hg and lead, which are known developmental toxicants. However, the 2020 residual risk assessment showed all modeled exposures to HAP from these facilities to be below levels of public health concern (85 FR 31286). Therefore, this action does not present or address disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The 2024 MATS RTR RIA projected the 2024 Final Action would have minimal impacts on average retail electricity prices across the contiguous U.S., coal-fired electricity generation, natural gas-fired electricity generation, and utility power sector delivered natural gas prices. This proposed action will prevent any adverse energy impacts that might have occurred under the 2024 Final Action. Details of the projected energy effects are presented in section 3 of the RIA, which is in the public docket.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) has received a complete Underground Injection Control (UIC) program revision application from the State of Texas, requesting primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for Class VI injection wells under Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) section 1422. The EPA's approval would allow the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) to issue and enforce compliance with UIC Class VI permits for injection wells used for geologic carbon sequestration. In this action, the EPA proposes to approve Texas' application to implement the UIC program for Class VI injection wells located within the State, except those on Indian lands.
Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2025.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0157 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Kyle Carey, Drinking Water Infrastructure Development Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2322; or Lisa Pham, UIC/Groundwater Section, Water Division, Region 6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270; telephone number: (214) 665-8326; fax: (214) 665-6490. Both can be reached by emailing
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0157, at
The EPA will hold one virtual public hearing during the public comment period. To register to speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online registration form available at
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Each commenter will have three minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically by emailing it to
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Updates on the virtual hearing logistics will be posted online at
The RRC proposed regulations for the geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO
The RRC proposed additional amendments to its CO
In response to preliminary feedback from the EPA (as part of the EPA's standard primacy application review process), the RRC proposed additional amendments to its CO
Documentation of Texas' public participation activities, including comments received and responses by the RRC, can be found in the EPA's Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0157.
The SDWA protects public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply, including both surface and groundwater sources. The SDWA requires the EPA to develop minimum requirements for effective State and Tribal UIC programs to prevent underground injection of fluids (such as water, wastewater, brines from oil and gas production, and carbon dioxide) from endangering underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). In general, USDWs are aquifers or parts of aquifers that supply a public water system or contain enough groundwater to supply a public water system. See 40 CFR 144.3 (defining USDW).
The EPA's UIC program regulates various aspects of an injection well project. These include technical aspects throughout the lifetime of the project from site characterization, construction, operation, and testing and monitoring through site closure, as well as permitting, site inspections, and reporting to ensure well owners and operators comply with UIC permits and regulations.
SDWA section 1421 directs the EPA to establish requirements that States, territories, and federally recognized Tribes (hereafter referred to as applicants) must meet to be granted primary enforcement responsibility or “primacy” for implementing a UIC program, including a Class VI program. 42 U.S.C. 300h. An applicant seeking primacy under SDWA section 1422 for a Class VI program must demonstrate to the EPA that the applicant's Class VI program meets the Federal requirements promulgated by EPA pursuant to section 1421 for protecting USDWs. 42 U.S.C. 300h-300h-1. An applicant must demonstrate, among other things, jurisdiction over underground injection and the administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement authorities required by the EPA's implementing regulations. See 40 CFR part 145,
The EPA comprehensively evaluates each primacy application in accordance with SDWA section 1422 to determine whether the State has satisfactorily demonstrated that it has adopted and will implement a UIC program that meets applicable regulatory requirements. The EPA conducts a similar comprehensive evaluation for proposed program revisions, including a program revision to add Class VI primacy.
Class VI wells are used to inject carbon dioxide into deep rock formations for the purpose of long-term underground storage, also known as geologic sequestration. The geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide in UIC Class VI wells is used as part of carbon capture and storage for carbon dioxide emissions from industrial sources. Class VI injection wells are regulated under a SDWA permitting framework that protects USDWs.
The UIC Class VI program provides multiple safeguards that work together to protect USDWs. Owners or operators that wish to inject carbon dioxide underground for the purpose of geologic sequestration must demonstrate that their proposed injection well and injection activities will meet all regulatory requirements and receive a Class VI permit for each well. The UIC Class VI program requires applicants to meet technical, financial, and managerial requirements to obtain a Class VI permit, including:
• Site characterization to ensure the geology in the project area will contain the carbon dioxide within the zone where it is authorized to be injected.
• Modeling to delineate the predicted area influenced by injection activities through the lifetime of the project.
• Evaluation of the delineated area to ensure all potential pathways for fluid movement have been identified and addressed through corrective action.
• Well construction requirements that ensure the Class VI injection well will not leak carbon dioxide.
• Testing and monitoring throughout the life of the project, including after carbon dioxide injection has ended. Requirements include, for example, testing to ensure physical integrity of the well, monitoring for seismic activity near the injection site, monitoring of injection pressure and flow, chemical analysis of the carbon dioxide stream that is being injected, and monitoring the extent of the injected carbon dioxide plume and the surrounding area (
• Operating requirements (for example, injection pressure limitations) to ensure the injection activity will not endanger USDWs.
• Financial assurance mechanisms sufficient to cover the costs for all phases of the geologic sequestration project including the post-injection site care period and until site closure has been approved by the permitting authority.
• Emergency and remedial response plans.
• Reporting of all testing and monitoring results to the permitting authority to ensure the well is operating in compliance with all permit requirements.
The permitting authority ensures that these protective requirements are included in each Class VI permit. A draft of each Class VI permit is made available to the public for comment before the decision is made whether to issue a final permit.
The State of Texas received primacy for Class I, III, IV, and V injection wells under SDWA section 1422 on January 6, 1982 (47 FR 618) and for Class II injection wells under SDWA section 1425 on April 23, 1982 (47 FR 17488). On February 20, 2025, Texas applied to the EPA under SDWA section 1422 for primacy for Class VI injection wells located within the State, except those located on Indian lands.
This regulation is proposed under authority of SDWA sections 1422 and 1450, 42 U.S.C. 300h-1 and 300j-9.
SDWA section 1421 requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate Federal requirements for effective State UIC programs to prevent underground injection activities that endanger USDWs. 42 U.S.C. 300h. SDWA section 1422 requires States seeking primacy to demonstrate to the EPA that the State has adopted (after notice and public hearing) and will implement a UIC program which meets the requirements that EPA promulgated under section 1421. Section 1422 also contemplates States seeking EPA approval for revisions to existing State UIC programs.
For States and Tribes seeking EPA approval for UIC programs or revisions to existing State and Tribal UIC programs under SDWA section 1422, the EPA has promulgated regulations setting forth the applicable procedures and substantive requirements. The regulations in 40 CFR part 144 outline general program requirements that each State must meet to obtain primacy. The regulations in 40 CFR part 145 specify the procedures the EPA follows when considering applications for primacy, applications for program revisions, and withdrawing State programs, and outlines the elements and provisions that a State must include in its application for primacy or for a program revision.
On February 20, 2025, Texas submitted to the EPA a program revision application to add Class VI wells to the State's SDWA section 1422 UIC program. The UIC program revision application from Texas includes a description of the State's proposed UIC Class VI program, copies of all applicable rules and forms, a statement of legal authority, a summary of Texas' public participation activities, and an addendum to the existing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Texas and the EPA's Region 6 office. The EPA reviewed the application for completeness and performed a technical evaluation of the application materials.
The EPA evaluates applications from primacy authorities to revise their UIC programs in accordance with SDWA section 1422 and 40 CFR 145.32 to determine whether an applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that its proposed program revision meets EPA regulatory requirements and the SDWA. The EPA conducted a comprehensive technical and legal evaluation of Texas' program revision application to determine whether the State's proposed
The EPA evaluated Texas' UIC Class VI program description for consistency with 40 CFR 145.23, which specifies all the information that must be included as part of the program description. The EPA's evaluation of the UIC Class VI program description included reviewing the scope, coverage, processes, and organizational structure of the proposed Class VI program. The EPA evaluated Texas' permitting, administrative, and judicial review procedures relevant to Class VI permits, as well as the State's permit application, reporting, and manifest forms for Class VI permits. The EPA also reviewed the State's UIC compliance evaluation program and enforcement authorities and the State's demonstration that its UIC Class VI program will have adequate in-house staff or access to contractor support for technical areas including site characterization, modeling, well construction and testing, financial responsibility, and regulatory and risk analysis.
The EPA evaluated Texas' Class VI related Attorney General's statement for consistency with 40 CFR 145.24. In an Attorney General's statement, the State's top legal officer affirms that applicable State law (
The EPA determined that the Class VI MOA addendum meets the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 145.25 for primacy MOAs. The MOA is the central agreement setting the provisions and arrangements between the State and the EPA concerning the administration and enforcement of the State UIC program. The EPA's evaluation of the Class VI MOA addendum included ensuring that the MOA addendum contained the appropriate provisions pertaining to coordination, permitting, compliance monitoring, enforcement, and EPA oversight. For example, the Class VI MOA addendum specifies that the RRC and the EPA agree to maintain a high level of cooperation and coordination to assure successful and effective administration of the UIC Class VI Program.
Texas has demonstrated that it meets all UIC permit requirements found in 40 CFR 145.11 for Class VI permits. Texas' UIC Class VI permitting provisions and technical criteria and standards meet the Federal requirements in 40 CFR parts 124 and 144 through 146. The State has incorporated necessary procedures, pursuant to 40 CFR 145.12, to support a robust UIC Class VI compliance evaluation program. Additionally, Texas has available the necessary civil and criminal enforcement authorities pursuant to 40 CFR 145.13. Texas' UIC Class VI regulations regarding permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping meet Federal requirements found in 40 CFR parts 145 and 146.
As a result of this comprehensive review, the EPA is proposing to approve Texas' program revision application because the EPA has determined that the application meets all applicable requirements for Class VI primacy approval under SDWA section 1422 and because the State has demonstrated that it is prepared to implement a UIC program in a manner consistent with the SDWA and all applicable UIC regulations.
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State of Texas UIC program to give Texas primacy over Class VI injection wells in the State, except for those located on Indian lands. Texas' statutes and regulations that are proposed to be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.2200 are publicly available in the EPA's Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0157. If finalized, this action would amend 40 CFR 147.2200 and incorporate by reference Texas' EPA-approved State statutes and regulations that contain UIC Class VI standards, requirements, and procedures applicable to Class VI owners or operators within the State. Any such provisions incorporated by reference, as well as all permit conditions or permit denials issued pursuant to such provisions, are enforceable by the EPA pursuant to SDWA section 1423 and 40 CFR 147.1(e). The EPA will continue to administer the UIC program for Class I, II, III, IV, V, and VI injection wells on Indian lands. 30 CFR 147.2205. No Tribe currently has UIC primacy for Indian lands within Texas.
The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the Texas statutes and regulations that contain standards, requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of Class VI wells as a compilation titled “Texas SDWA § 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Class VI Incorporated by Reference,” dated May 1, 2025. This compilation would be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.2200 and is available at
Upon approval, the EPA would oversee Texas' administration of its Class VI program in addition to continuing to oversee Texas' administration of its existing UIC programs for Class I, II, III, IV, and V wells. The EPA will continue to require quarterly reports on instances of permittee non-compliance and annual UIC performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR 144.8. The Class VI MOA addendum between the EPA and Texas, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on April 29, 2025, articulates that the EPA will oversee the State's administration of the UIC Class VI program on a continuing basis to assure that such administration is consistent with the program MOAs, UIC grant agreements, State and Federal law, and any separate working agreements which are entered into between the RRC Director and the Regional Administrator as necessary for the administration of the UIC program.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at:
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted, as a category, the approval of State UIC programs. This exemption also applies to EPA approvals of revisions to existing State UIC programs.
Executive Order 14192 does not apply because actions that approve State UIC programs are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action will not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0042. Reporting or recordkeeping requirements will be based on Texas' Class VI UIC Regulations, and the State of Texas is not subject to the PRA.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any burdens on small entities as this action transfers regulatory authority from the EPA to a State program with substantially the same requirements.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA's proposed approval of Texas' Class VI program will not constitute a Federal mandate because there is no requirement that a state establish UIC regulatory programs and because the program is a State, rather than a Federal program.
This action does not have Federalism implications. 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.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action contains no Federal mandates for Tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a State program.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 147 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 300f
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The UIC program for Class I, III, IV, and V wells in the State of Texas, except for those wells on Indian lands, and except for Class III brine mining wells and certain Class V wells, is the program administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality approved by EPA pursuant to section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Notice of the original approval for Class I, III, IV, and V wells was published in the
(a)
(3) Texas SDWA Sec. 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Class VI Incorporated by Reference,” dated May 1, 2025.
(c) * * *
(3)
(4)
(d) * * *
(3)
(e) * * *
(3)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to remove the Gila chub (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before August 18, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 9828 North 31st Avenue Suite C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517; telephone 602-242-0210. 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. 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. Please see Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2022-0001 on
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not remove the Gila chub from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; and
(2) Relevant data concerning the taxonomy of the Gila chub, particularly genetic relationships to other members of the genus
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)) directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well as any information that may become available after this proposal. For example, based on the new information we receive (and if relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species should remain listed as endangered, or we may conclude that the species should be reclassified from endangered to threatened. We will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an addendum to the SSA report for the Lower Colorado River roundtail chub (
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
As discussed above in Peer Review, we received comments from three peer reviewers on the draft SSA addendum. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the information contained in the SSA addendum. All reviewers acknowledged the complexity and challenges associated with elucidating the taxonomy of the three
Two of the reviewers noted that
One reviewer acknowledged that there may be other species concepts (
One reviewer provided further interpretation and assessment of the recent genomics studies cited in the SSA addendum, specifically Chafin et al. (2021, entire) and Suchocki et al. (2023, entire). The reviewer commented that we placed too much emphasis on the influence of sampling bias in the Chafin et al. study and should focus more on the lack of statistical support for the phylogenetic groups they identified. They also provided additional interpretation on the discriminant analysis conducted by Suchocki et al. (2023, pp. 5-8). We made changes to the SSA addendum to reflect this reviewer's perspective.
On August 9, 2002, we published in the
On October 7, 2015, following completion of an SSA, we published in the
In 2018, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) challenged our 2017 withdrawal of the 2015 proposed rule to list the headwater chub and Lower Colorado River roundtail chub DPS as threatened species under the Act. On March 31, 2021, the U.S. District Court found the 2017 withdrawal of the 2015 proposed rule was arbitrary and capricious because we withdrew the proposed rule based on taxonomic revisions, but never fully reevaluated the petitioned entity, the Lower Colorado River roundtail chub DPS. In other words, the taxonomic revisions created a new biological entity in the Lower Colorado River basin that, under the Act, we were still obligated to assess under the original 2003 petition. The court vacated the withdrawal of the proposed rule and ordered that a new 12-month finding be completed by March 31, 2022.
On April 5, 2022, following completion of an SSA, we published in the
The Gila chub (
The authoritative description of these three putative species is based on mean counts of meristic characters (
The extensive overlap in meristic characters between the three putative species and watershed-specific differences has challenged attempts to accurately identify individual
Genetic studies have arrived at similar conclusions. As with the morphological data, the three putative species do not form distinct genetic groups (DeMarais
Chafin et al. (2021, entire) used genome-wide markers to test several hypotheses regarding the evolution of
As noted by nearly all researchers investigating the systematics of
The joint report from the American Fisheries Society and American Society of Ichthyology and Herpetology Joint Committee on the Names of Fishes, which evaluated evidence available at the time, concluded that there was no support for species-level status for Gila chub and headwater chub and recommended collapsing them into roundtail chub, recognizing only a single species (Page et al. 2017, p. 459). Recently, the American Fisheries Society published the latest edition of the accepted scientific names of North American fishes. They list
Since the publication of this report (Page et al. 2017, entire), more information has become available that supports the conclusion that Gila chub and headwater chub are not distinct taxonomic entities (Moran et al. 2017, entire; Carter et al. 2018, entire; Copus et al. 2018, entire; Suchocki et al. 2023, entire; but see Chafin et al. 2023, entire). Minckley and DeMarais (2000, entire) defined these two putative species based on a particular analysis of phenotypic data. Subsequent studies have failed to distinguish these as two species using alternative analyses and could not even successfully assign individuals collected in the field to the supposed correct species using the Minckley and DeMarais taxonomic key (Moran et al. 2017, entire; Carter et al. 2018, entire). Genetic studies have also failed to demonstrate strong statistical support for the presence of distinct genetic lineages that correspond to the Gila and headwater chubs (Schwemm 2006, entire; Dowling et al. 2015, entire; Copus et al. 2018, entire; Chafin et al. 2021, entire; Suchocki et al. 2023, entire). In conclusion, based on the best scientific and commercial data available,
In the April 5, 2022, advance notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the delisting of the Gila chub (87 FR 19657), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments by June 6, 2022. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the action under consideration. We received 12 comments in total. Three State agencies provided comments, all of which were supportive of the delisting of the Gila chub based on taxonomic changes. Two of the public comments cited the findings of Chafin et al. (2021, entire) as justification to not delist the Gila chub but did not elaborate beyond that argument. We received the most substantive comments from a group of experts who disagreed with our interpretation of the taxonomy of Gila chub. Below are their specific comments and our responses.
We agree with the commenters that basing taxonomic decisions solely on genetic information generated with nuclear microsatellites can be problematic given the characteristics of these markers. However, microsatellites have long been used to characterize population differentiation, even at species-level differences, and if the three presumed species were genetically distinct, they likely would have been observed in the dataset generated by Dowling et al. (2015, entire). The commenters argue that we should ignore the findings of Dowling et al. (2015, entire) when it comes to informing taxonomy, but the findings fit a pattern observed in other genetic studies that there is a lack of genetic differentiation among the three putative species. Aside from Chafin et al. (2021, entire), there have been multiple studies using mitochondrial sequences (DeMarais 1992, pp. 131-151; Schwemm 2006, entire; Schönhuth et al. 2014, pp. 215-217, 219), microsatellite markers (Dowling et al. 2015, entire), and/or single nucleotide polymorphisms (Copus et al. 2018, entire; Suchocki et al. 2023, entire) that were unable to identify diagnostic markers unique to any of the three putative species or failed to observe patterns of genetic
We do not contest the findings of Douglas et al. (1999, entire), but instead contend that they have little relevance to the question of Gila chub taxonomy. They tested whether body shapes, composed of 10 measured traits, among 1,106
Furthermore, contrary to the commenters' claim, the findings of Douglas et al. (1999, entire) and Chafin et al. (2021, entire) are not congruent. Douglas et al. (1999, p. 243-244) concluded that phenotypic diversity was most strongly associated with the mid Miocene and Pliocene epochs, indicating multiple colonization events during those time periods. The mid-Miocene covers a period of geological history spanning from 16 to 11.5 million years ago and the Pliocene from 5.3 to 2.5 million years ago. However, based on genomic data, Chafin et al. (2021, p. 9) estimated that the roundtail, Gila, and headwater diverged from each other less than 2 million years ago. These incongruent findings do not invalidate either study but reveal that there is still uncertainty in the evolutionary history of
Regarding the commenters' assertion of our inconsistencies, we acknowledge that the circumstances surrounding every taxonomic situation are unique. Under our regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(c), we rely, to the extent practicable, on the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) to determine a species' scientific name. Further, recognition of a particular scientific name requires rigorous
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species.
“Species” is defined by the Act as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)).
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e) identify four reasons why, after conducting a status review based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we will delist a species: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; (3) new information that has become available since the original listing decision shows the listed entity does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; or (4) new information that has become available since the original listing decision shows the listed entity does not meet the definition of a species.
In accordance with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(4), our review of the best scientific and commercial data available indicates that the Gila chub does not meet the Act's definition of a species (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Therefore, we propose to remove Gila chub from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The Gila chub does not require a post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan because the requirements for PDM only apply to species delisted due to recovery (16 U.S.C. 1533(g)(1)), not those delisted due to the listed entity no longer meeting the statutory definition of a species.
This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the Gila chub from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to the Gila chub. Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the Gila chub.
In addition, if this proposal is made final, 50 CFR 17.95(e) would be revised by removing the designated critical habitat for the Gila chub.
We are required by Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We coordinated with several Tribes, most notably the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the San Carlos Apache Tribe, in development of the Lower Colorado River roundtail chub DPS SSA (Service 2022, entire). We also contacted these Tribes, along with others in the region, following publication of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking to delist the Gila chub (87 FR 19657). No Tribes provided comments during the public comment period. We will continue to work with Tribal entities during the development of a final delisting determination for the Gila chub.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this action on May 1, 2025, for publication. On June 9, 2025, Paul Souza authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notification of findings.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce findings that three species are not warranted for listing as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this time to list the bog spicebush (
The findings in this document were made on June 17, 2025.
Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are available on the internet at
Those descriptions are also available by contacting the appropriate person as specified under
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. 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.
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines “species” as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M-Opinion,” available online at
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the bog spicebush, Edward's Aquifer diving beetle, and Texas screwstem meet the Act's definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species,” we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information for the species. Our evaluation may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this document announces the not-warranted findings on petitions to list the three species. We have also elected to include brief summaries of the analyses on which these findings are based. We provide the full analyses, including the reasons and data on which the findings are based, in the decisional file for each of the actions included in this document. Below, we describe the documents containing these analyses.
The species assessment forms for the bog spicebush, Edward's Aquifer diving beetle, and Texas screwstem each contain more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that these species do not meet the Act's definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” To inform our status reviews, we completed species status assessment (SSA) reports for these species. Each SSA report contains a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, current status, and projected future status for each species. This supporting information can be found on the internet at
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 species, including the bog spicebush, as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the
Bog spicebush is a wetland shrub endemic to the southeastern United States, including the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. The species' current distribution is not substantively reduced from its known historical distribution. Bog spicebush occurs in two general wetland habitats including seepage slopes with frequent fire, and in swamp forests and baygalls (or bay swamps) with less frequent fire. These habitat types are typically embedded within other upland forest ecosystems. Bog spicebush requires soils that are saturated but not permanently inundated. These soils are acidic and high in organic matter (
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to bog spicebush, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the Act's five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the bog spicebush's biological status include habitat loss or modification due to urbanization and fire suppression, as well as the future changes to hydrologic regimes, habitat condition, disease, and insect herbivory of this shrub, the latter of which would potentially result from increasing temperatures and subsequent increases in survival and reproduction of insect herbivores. We also examined other factors including the effects of laurel wilt disease, invasive species, mineral and materials extraction, silviculture, seed predation, and the effects of small, isolated populations, but these factors did not rise to such a level that they affected the species as a whole.
There are several historical and ongoing stressors to the species. However, the best available information indicates that the current distribution of the species is not substantively reduced from its known historical distribution. Habitat loss and modification due to urbanization and fire suppression is the primary factor influencing the species rangewide. The species is known from 123 populations historically with 9 documented extirpations distributed across 5 States, including the only known population in Louisiana. Of the 114 assessed populations, 19 (16.7 percent) exhibit high current resiliency and 76 (66.7 percent) exhibit moderate
The future scenarios through 2075 in the SSA report encompass the best available information for future projections of changes in suitable burn window, changes in forest and wetland land cover classes, and how the geospatial aspects of a population area may provide some protection against changing environmental conditions across two plausible future scenarios (high and low impact). We projected that more than half of bog spicebush populations (66 to 70 populations; 57.9 to 61.4 percent) are projected to remain moderately to highly resilient, even under the higher impact scenario in 2075. These high and moderate resiliency populations are expected to have the ability to withstand stochastic events. Under each scenario, high and moderate resiliency populations are distributed across the range of the species except for the 10 populations in Alabama (7 populations) and Georgia (3 populations). Of the populations on conservation lands, between 73.8 and 76.2 percent are projected to exhibit moderate to high resiliency in the foreseeable future. However, populations not on conservation lands are projected to decline in resiliency, with between 24 and 26 of 30 populations projected to exhibit low resiliency. The future redundancy of the bog spicebush is expected to decrease somewhat as the resiliency of some populations declines. However, populations with moderate to high resiliency are projected to be distributed across the range of the species under both future scenarios and timesteps. We expect that future redundancy of the bog spicebush, although decreased from current levels, will remain sufficient to support species' viability. Therefore, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the bog spicebush is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the bog spicebush is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any portions of the bog spicebush's range for which both (1) the portion is significant, and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion, either now or within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the bog spicebush is not in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range now or within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that the bog spicebush is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing bog spicebush as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the bog spicebush species assessment form and other supporting documents on
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
On June 25, 2007, we received a petition from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) to list 475 species, including the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On December 16, 2009, we published a 90‐day finding (74 FR 66866) that the petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that listing may be warranted for the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the June 25, 2007, petition to list Edwards Aquifer diving beetle under the Act.
The Edwards Aquifer diving beetle (also referred to as the Texas cave diving beetle) is a small subterranean aquatic insect that lives underground in the southern segment of the Edwards Aquifer. The diving beetle has been expelled from four artesian wells and springs at two of the largest spring ecosystems in this segment: San Marcos Springs in Hays County, Texas, and Comal Springs in Comal County, Texas. The species exhibits subterranean morphological traits, feeds on resources found at deeper levels within the Edwards Aquifer near the freshwater/saline-water interface, and is infrequently captured compared to other subterranean taxa and congener species. The best available information suggests the species inhabits deeper aquifer habitat (as opposed to hyporheic zone, springs, or surface habitats). The presence of diving beetles expelled from the San Marcos artesian well, which reaches depths of 60 meters (197 feet), suggests that their habitat extends to at least this depth, if not deeper.
Aquifer habitats are characterized by the absence of light and relatively stable physiochemical properties, and they can be buffered against abrupt changes, depending on their distance from surface and the amount of terrestrial inputs. The Edwards Aquifer is recognized for its unique biodiversity in part explained by the abundant energy sources supported through chemolithoautotrophy (
Edwards Aquifer diving beetles are opportunistically predaceous and are primary consumers. The food sources for the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle vary between the populations from the two spring ecosystems, with San Marcos Springs and Comal Springs individuals having 92 percent and 27 percent, respectively, of their stomach contents from chemolithoautotrophic organic matter. We assume this difference in what the diving beetles in each of these populations consume is influenced by where they live. The population at San Marcos Springs is underground in the artesian zone where a more impervious rock layer separates the surface from the groundwater habitat. This physical separation makes the San Marcos Spring population less likely to access food from the surface. The population at Comal Springs is in the recharge zone of the aquifer, where the less impervious rocks at the surface are exposed and would introduce surface-derived food resources more readily.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the Act's five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats to the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle's biological status that we evaluated include reductions in water quantity through groundwater pumping and development, water quality, effects of extreme droughts and increased temperatures, and mortality from groundwater wells.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we found that the best available information does not project a negative impact from environmental or anthropogenic factors directly to Edwards Aquifer diving beetle populations, nor does the best available information indicate a change to historic demographic factors. The primary driving factors of Edwards Aquifer diving beetle's viability are water quantity (
Additionally, the best available information does not indicate that any groundwater contamination is affecting the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle. Past and current urbanization and human population growth have not resulted in significant degradation in water quality at the Comal and San Marcos Spring systems. Despite increases in localized impervious cover, most of the groundwater comes from a much larger regional area that is currently less developed and less impacted by contamination.
Finally, direct mortality through expulsion from groundwater wells is occurring, but the best available information available indicates that expulsion of individuals via wells are infrequent, and the species' likely high reproductive rate results in this level of mortality being unlikely to affect the population's current resiliency. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Edwards aquifer diving beetle is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
The primary driving factors on the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle populations' future viability are water quality (
Water quantity is expected to remain sufficient for the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle. At the depths at which this species occurs in the aquifer, future groundwater extraction and changes in precipitation events are not expected to have significant effects on the species' habitat. Flow protection measures have sustained Comal and San Marcos Spring ecosystems during drought and provide protection for water levels in deeper portions of the southern segment. There is no evidence indicating any threat to the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle under current groundwater management implementation, and if current management of the southern segment continues into the future, aquifer levels should not decline to a level where Edwards Aquifer diving beetle habitat would be affected.
Thus, the best available information does not project a negative impact from environmental or anthropogenic factors directly to the known Edwards Aquifer diving beetle population, nor is there evidence indicating a negative change to demographic factors historically. We expect that resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species will be maintained into the foreseeable future. After assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any portions of the Edwards
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle species assessment form and other supporting documents on
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 species, including Texas screwstem, as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the
The Texas screwstem is a small and inconspicuous plant, usually growing less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) in height. It is native to the Pineywoods region of east Texas with a single occurrence in Louisiana. The species has been documented in 24 locations since it was first described in 1965. Since 2010, it has been observed in 12 of those locations, all occurring in seven counties in east Texas.
The Texas screwstem is a habitat specialist, dependent on the unique baygall habitat (
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Texas screwstem, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the Act's five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the Texas screwstem's biological status include habitat loss and degradation due to human development, timber harvest, and invasive species; direct damage from invasive hogs; and severe weather events, including hurricanes. In east Texas, human activity and development has resulted in the loss and degradation of wetlands, including the baygall habitats on which the Texas screwstem is dependent. There are conservation measures that may limit the effects of human development on the Texas screwstem, such as the occurrence of more than half of the populations on federally owned lands or privately owned lands that are managed for conservation. Other threats, such as feral hog damage and severe weather events, are the most pervasive threats across the range and can reduce the resiliency of populations by directly impacting individual Texas screwstem plants or their habitats.
In our analysis of the species and its threats, we found that the Texas screwstem is known from 24 historical populations, 12 of which have had detections in recent surveys. At least 1 population is extirpated, and another 10 currently have low resiliency, making them vulnerable to stochastic events. However, 11 populations have high resiliency, meaning they have sufficient habitat and demographic characteristics that facilitate persistence. As a narrowly distributed habitat specialist, the Texas screwstem likely had limited redundancy and representation historically. Populations are also found in two of the three ecoregions in which the species historically occurred. However, populations are distributed across three separate hydrological basins, with at least two high resiliency populations in each basin. The presence of multiple populations across most of the historical range and several hydrological basins buffers the Texas screwstem against the potential effects of catastrophic events. These populations continue to be distributed across several ecoregions and most of the historical extent of the species' range, indicating limited declines in adaptive capacity. Overall, the Texas screwstem is composed of multiple high resiliency populations that cover much of the historical range of the species, conferring redundancy and representation. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Texas screwstem is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
We project that populations currently in low resiliency will become extirpated. Loss of these populations will result in reductions in redundancy and representation. However, populations currently in high resiliency are projected to remain in that condition in the future. Of the 11 currently highly resilient populations, in the worst-case scenario, 6 populations are projected to continue to remain highly resilient, and 4 populations are projected to decline to moderate resiliency. Thus, we do not project that there will be reductions in resiliency that would result in rangewide population extirpations. These populations will continue to occur across several hydrological basins and ecoregions, covering much of the historical range. Therefore, we do not project that there will be substantial declines in redundancy and representation that would elevate extinction risk. In total, based on our analysis of the threats that may reduce the viability of the Texas screwstem, we find that the biological status of the species is not projected to change substantially in the foreseeable future.
We also evaluated whether the Texas screwstem is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any portions of the Texas screwstem's range for which both (1) the portion is significant, and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion, either now or within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Texas screwstem is not in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range now or within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that the Texas screwstem is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Texas screwstem as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Texas screwstem species assessment form and other supporting documents on
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
We request that you submit any new information concerning the taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the bog spicebush, Edward's Aquifer diving beetle, and Texas screwstem to the appropriate person, as specified under
A complete list of the references used in these petition findings is available in the relevant species assessment form, which is available on the internet at
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this action on May 16, 2025, for publication. On June 9, 2025, Paul Souza authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list seven species of pangolin distributed throughout Asia and Africa as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month finding on a petition to list these species. After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing these species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Chinese pangolin (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before August 18, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Rachel London, Manager, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2171. 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. 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. Please see Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0028 on
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of these species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns and the locations of any additional populations of these species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting these species, including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of these species, which may include habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment; overutilization; disease; predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to these species; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be addressing threats to these species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current status of these species.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that any of the seven pangolin species are threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that one or more of the seven pangolin species does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in
On July 15, 2015, we received a petition from Born Free USA, Center for Biological Diversity, Humane Society International, The Humane Society of the United States, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare that requested to list
On May 24, 2021, we informed petitioners of our decision on the APA petition in which we considered the requirements for treating the seven pangolin species as endangered or threatened species under section 4(e) on the basis of their similarity of appearance to the listed Temminck's ground pangolin and determined that the seven petitioned pangolin species do not meet our criteria for treating them as endangered species or threatened species due to similarity of appearance to the endangered Temminck's ground pangolin. In this proposed rule, we use the valid taxonomic entities
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the Chinese, Indian, Sunda, Philippine, white-bellied, black-bellied, and giant pangolin. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Eight species of pangolins within three genera (
Although the petitions refer to the Chinese, Indian, Sunda, Philippine, white-bellied, black-bellied, and giant pangolin as
As explained above, these taxonomic changes include revisions to the scientific name of the Temminck's ground pangolin. The entry for Temminck's ground pangolin on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife was last revised in 2016 (81 FR 51550; August 4, 2016). Currently, the entry for Temminck's ground pangolin (
Pangolins are uniquely armored mammals, covered in keratinized scales that account for roughly 20 percent of their body weight. When threatened they assume a defensive posture, curling into a tight ball projecting the sharp
The Chinese pangolin (
The mating season has been recorded from February to July, and females give birth in burrows between September and February (Zhang et al., 2016, p. 138). Gestation lasts from 180-225 days, usually producing one offspring annually, although the species may be capable of producing two offspring a year in rare cases (Zhang et al., 2016, p. 138). Offspring wean at around 4 months of age and reach sexual maturity between 12-18 months old (Sun et al., 2018, pp. 3-4). The lifespan of this species in the wild is unknown. In captivity, the Chinese pangolin has been recorded to reach 18 years of age; however, the rate of survival in captivity is generally very low (Yang et al., 2007, p. 3).
The Indian pangolin (
The Sunda pangolin (
The Sunda pangolin is primarily nocturnal and solitary, aside from female-offspring parental care (Chong et al., 2020, p. 98). The species does not have a defined breeding season, and gestation lasts between 106-207 days, producing one young at a time (Zhang et al., 2015, p. 133). Little is known about the age of sexual maturity for this species, but individuals are considered adult between 1-2 years of age (Chong et al., 2020, pp. 100-101).
The Philippine pangolin (
Breeding for the Philippine pangolin is presumed to be year-round, and traditional ecological knowledge indicates that the species produces one young at a time (Schoppe et al., 2020, p. 118). Little is known about gestation and age of sexual maturity, but it is believed to be similar to the Sunda pangolin.
The white-bellied pangolin (
The white-bellied pangolin is nocturnal and shelters in tree burrows near feeding burrow sites adjacent to ant and termite mounds (Akpona et al., 2008, pp. 199-200). Breeding is year-round with gestation lasting 140-209 days, producing one young annually (Jansen et al., 2020, pp. 150-150). Little is known about sexual maturity and lifespan, but the species has lived up to 10 years at the San Diego Zoo (Jansen et al., 2020, p. 151); however, the rate of survival of pangolins in captivity is generally very low (Hua et al., 2015). Compared to other pangolin species, white-bellied pangolin scales are thinner, potentially making it more susceptible to natural predators such as leopards (Jansen et al., 2020, p. 150).
The black-bellied pangolin (
The black-bellied pangolin is primarily diurnal and has a highly specialized diet of tree ants. This species shelters in tree hollows, does not typically use resident or feeding burrows, and rarely descends to the ground (Gudehus et al., 2020, p. 132). Breeding is not seasonal, and gestation is estimated to last 104 days. Black-bellied pangolins are thought to reach sexual maturity around 2 years of age, but their life span is unknown (Gudehus et al., 2020, p. 134). This species is the most elusive species of pangolin (with one of the most severe stress responses to disturbance) and is thought to prefer densely vegetated, undisturbed habitat (Gudehus et al., 2020, pp. 134-135).
The giant pangolin (
The giant pangolin is nocturnal (Amin et al., 2023, p. 97). Prey include ants and termites with a preference for larger species (Difouo et al., 2021, p. 551). Breeding is year-round, producing one offspring at a time. Young remain dependent on the mother until the next offspring is born (Hoffmann et al., 2020, pp. 166-167). Among pangolin species, the giant pangolin is thought to have the longest generation time (roughly 15 years; Nixon et al., 2019 pp. 1-2).
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species.
The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition, or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M-Opinion,” available online at
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess the Chinese pangolin, Indian pangolin, Sunda pangolin, Philippine pangolin, white-bellied pangolin, black-bellied pangolin and giant pangolin viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein, 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase with increases in (and decrease with decreases in) resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al., 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified each species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA process involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0028 on
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of each species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess their overall viability and the risks to that viability.
Based on each species' life history described above (see discussion under Background) and in the SSA report (Service 2025, pp. 31-33), the seven species of pangolin all require demographically and genetically healthy populations to be able to withstand demographic and environmental stochasticity. Demographically healthy populations with large population sizes and stable or increasing growth rates are better able to endure and recover from poor environmental conditions and stochastic events. In species that are long-lived and have a slow reproductive rate, a stressor that causes direct mortality of adults could rapidly reduce population size. Pangolins have a single pup per year, long gestation periods, and generation times ranging from 7 to 15 years. Consequently, with their slow reproductive rate, pangolins require particularly high levels of adult survival to facilitate recruitment of new breeders into populations.
All species of pangolins also require genetically healthy populations to be able to withstand stochasticity and maintain evolutionary potential. Genetically healthy populations maintain high genetic diversity within and among populations across a species' historical range (Kardos et al., 2021, entire). These processes ensure that populations are resistant to loss of genetic diversity through genetic drift and inbreeding and maintain standing genetic variation and evolutionary potential to respond to shifting environmental conditions.
Pangolins require large, connected populations distributed across spatially heterogeneous environments, as this scenario maximizes evolutionary potential. When large populations are distributed across spatially variable conditions (referred to as spatial or environmental heterogeneity), the exposure to heterogeneous selection pressures contribute to local adaptation and adaptive differentiation, which increases among-population genetic diversity and evolutionary potential (Forester et al., 2016, pp. 114-115, 2022, pp. 508-512).
Pangolins also require a wide geographic distribution across spatially heterogeneous environments to minimize the degree to which correlated dynamics and catastrophic events impact extinction risk. Species with populations distributed widely across spatially heterogeneous environments are more likely to experience differential conditions. They are, thus, more likely to experience asynchronous environmental conditions and asynchronous demographic fluctuations among populations (
Pangolins are the world's most heavily trafficked mammal, with overexploitation identified as the leading cause of population declines (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 2020, pp. 66-67). Scales are currently the most heavily traded pangolin parts, accounting for 97 percent of seizures involving pangolins in 2018 (UNODC, 2020, p. 66). Demand for pangolin meat and scales is not species-specific, and species experiencing lower levels of poaching become increasingly exploited over time as other pangolin species become rarer. Harvest pressure has shifted geographically and across species over time as availability of species have declined because of overexploitation (Heinrich et al., 2016, p. 247).
Asian pangolins have been used in traditional Chinese medicine for centuries, and more recently, unsustainable harvest has driven dramatic declines in pangolin populations (Xing et al., 2020, pp. 227-237; Challender et al. 2019, unpaginated). As Asian pangolins have declined, African pangolin species have increasingly been introduced into international trade, compounding the existing overexploitation from traditional and bushmeat usage resulting in local declines (Zhang et al., 2022, p. 2; Boakye et al., 2014, entire, 2015, entire; Soewu et al., 2020, p. 253; Soewu and Adekanola, 2011, entire). This shift has created a global trade network in which most pangolin scales are currently exported from Africa to Southeast Asia with most trafficked pangolins destined for China and Vietnam (UNODC, 2020, p. 65; Gossé et al., 2024, p. 2; Tinsman et al., 2023, entire). An estimated 0.4 to 2.7 million pangolins are harvested annually in Central Africa, representing a roughly 150 percent increase over the last four decades. This trend is accompanied by a growing shift toward international commercial markets in Asia sourced from Africa (Ingram et al., 2018, p. 6).
Other leading threats to pangolin species include habitat loss and fragmentation. Pangolins are particularly sensitive to human disturbance and stress and, thus, likely require minimal interactions with humans and access to undisturbed habitats. Pangolins that interact with humans are highly prone to stress responses that can significantly reduce their health (Hua et al., 2015 pp. 101-103; Yan et al., 2021, p. 1017).
Pangolin habitat quality is dependent on several environmental factors including suitable climate, canopy cover, ground cover, prey availability, litter depth, distance to infrastructure (
Levels of genetic diversity are very low across all pangolin species due to overexploitation, declining populations, and restricted gene flow linked to habitat loss (Gu et al., 2023, pp. 5, 7, 10). All species of pangolins also have elevated metrics of inbreeding and genetic load (reduction in fitness due to homozygosity for deleterious alleles) (Gu et al., 2023, pp. 5, 7, 10). Taken together, these indicators of genetic health are associated with increased inbreeding depression (reduction in fitness due to mating among related individuals), reduced evolutionary potential (reduced ability to adapt evolutionarily to changing conditions), and overall reduced viability. The Sunda, Chinese, white-bellied, black-bellied, and giant pangolins were all found to have compromised immune function due to pseudogenization (a mutation that causes loss of function) within an important cluster of highly conserved gene families that activate the immune system in the presence of pathogens (Choo et al, 2016, pp. 1314-1315). The poor genetic health of these species places them at increased susceptibility to disease. Further, illegal trafficking occurs under conditions that likely facilitate cross-species transmission of viruses among pangolins and other animals (Ye et al., 2023, p. 7).
The petitions we received presented information on additional threats specific to each of the seven species of pangolin. We assessed these threats and address them in detail in the SSA report (Service 2025, entire). We focus our discussion within this proposed rule on the primary threats of overexploitation, habitat loss, and genetic health.
All pangolins are listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected by trade. Species included in Appendix I receive the highest level of protection under CITES (CITES Article II(1) and (4); CITES Article III; 50 CFR part 23). International trade in species included in Appendix I is permitted only under exceptional circumstances. Unlike Appendix-II and -III species, international trade in Appendix-I specimens for primarily commercial purposes is strictly prohibited under CITES, with only narrow exceptions provided in the Convention. Legal international trade in Appendix-I species for commercial purposes is limited to only Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes at CITES-registered captive-breeding operations and traded under a valid CITES document with CITES source code “D” in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 and Article VII(4), and to pre-Convention animals removed from the wild or born in captivity before the species inclusion in the CITES Appendices (the pre-Convention date) and traded under a valid CITES pre-Convention certificate with CITES source code “O” in accordance with Article VII(2) (See CITES Articles III, VII(2), VII(4); Endangered Species Act section 9(c)(1); 50 CFR 23.5, 23.13, 23.20, 23.23, 23.24, 23.26, 23.27, 23.45, 23.46, 23.55). There are no CITES-registered captive-breeding operations for pangolin species, so there is virtually no current legal international trade in pangolin species for commercial purposes, and any such trade would require a valid CITES pre-Convention certificate (CITES, 2025a, unpaginated). The pre-Convention date for Chinese, Indian, Philippine, Sunda, and Temminck's pangolin is July 1, 1975. The pre-Convention date for black-bellied, giant, and white-bellied pangolin is February 26, 1976 (CITES, 2021, pp. 56-57).
Despite the transfer of all pangolins to CITES Appendix-I in 2016, effective January 2, 2017, many efforts to reduce illegal harvest, poaching, and trafficking have been insufficiently effective, reflecting some substantial barriers to implementation of CITES protections. In addition to the lack of complete and effective implementation of CITES
While these enforcement efforts and confiscations are important and necessary measures for the species, there is evidence that demand and poorly regulated domestic markets in Asia continue to drive poaching and illegal trade in pangolins, increasingly from poorly regulated markets in Africa. On August 24, 2023, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State, certified under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C. 1978(a)(2)), that nationals of the People's Republic of China (PRC) are engaging in trade or taking of pangolin, diminishing the effectiveness of CITES (89 FR 83073, October 15, 2024 and Department of the Interior, 2023, entire). Pursuant to the Pelly Amendment (22 U.S.C. 1978(a)(5)), while a country such as the PRC is certified under the Pelly Amendment, the President may consider whether to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to prohibit the importation of certain products from that country into the United States. Any such import prohibitions would apply until the President determines that they no longer are appropriate or until the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that the reasons for which the Pelly Amendment certification was made no longer prevail and terminates the certification. Additionally, actions that the United States and the PRC have committed to undertake (and associated progress) related to pangolin conservation were shared at the 33rd Meeting of the CITES Animals Committee in July 2024 (CITES 2024a, entire; CITES 2024b, entire) and the CITES 78th Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee in February 2025 (CITES 2025b, entire; CITES 2025c, entire), respectively.
Nonprofit organizations from around the world have worked extensively to raise awareness of pangolin conservation issues. Local rescue groups have been established to attempt to rehabilitate and release poached pangolins; however, the success rate of rehabilitation and conservation impact is unknown. Captive-breeding of pangolins has been attempted by more than 100 zoos and institutions over the last 150 years with very limited success, with most offspring dying before reaching 6 months of age (Hua et al., 2015, pp. 101). Adult pangolins held in captivity also have a very high mortality rate, with many only surviving days to weeks in captivity (Wu and Ma, 2007, p. 7). Large-scale pangolin captive-breeding is unlikely to ever feasibly satisfy trade demands due to the rarity of the species, complex dietary needs, stress-induced immune suppression, unsuccessful captive transport and holding, breeding, and rearing, and consumer reception of captive-bred products (Challender et al., 2019, pp. 5-6). Failure of captive-breeding also limits the feasibility of conservation breeding programs that could replace individuals harvested from the wild or maintain captive populations to conserve genetic diversity (Snyder et al., 1996, entire).
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on these species. To assess the current and future condition of these species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that may be influencing these species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
We now describe the current condition of each species of pangolin based upon the key historical and ongoing threats of overexploitation, habitat loss, and genetic health, and the effects of these threats on the viability of populations of these species, as indicated by the best scientific and commercial data available.
Historically, the Chinese pangolin has been harvested in large numbers, primarily for meat consumption in southern China, leather production, and traditional medicine (Challender et al., 2019a, entire). An unsustainable rate of harvest led to “commercial extinction” (
In response to harvest pressure, the supply of pangolins in Southeast Asia subsequently collapsed in 1995, and the price of scales more than doubled by 1996. As a result, contemporary trafficking in pangolins has shifted harvest of Chinese pangolin away from local subsistence use to international markets (Challender et al., 2020, p. 265). Poaching remains widespread in mainland China. It is estimated that illegal trade involved at least 3,500 Chinese pangolins in the period 2000-2019; these estimates are minimum values because roughly 105,000 pangolins sourced from Asia could not be identified to the species level (Challender et al., 2020, p. 268). Furthermore, these estimates are all based on seizures and reported CITES international trade; substantially more harvest likely occurred than has been observed, detected, or reported.
Land cover loss is another threat reducing the number, health, and distribution of Chinese pangolin populations. Throughout the historical range of the Chinese pangolin, 19.4 million ha of tree cover was lost from 2001 to 2023, constituting a roughly 12 percent decrease since 2000 (Hansen et al., 2013, unpaginated; Global Forest Watch, 2014, unpaginated). In the last few decades, China has implemented an afforestation program designed to help meet climate change goals (planting trees in areas that did not previously have forests, as contrasted with reforestation efforts that would be designed to restore lost forest habitat). However, this program has not fully offset overall forest declines, and more importantly for pangolin conservation, these efforts include a substantial amount of monoculture plantations that are not conducive to restoring or establishing usable pangolin habitat (Hua et al., 2018, p. 113).
Quantitative data on the census sizes of Chinese pangolin populations has been lacking due to the species' rarity, and its nocturnal and elusive behavior (Challender et al., 2019a, p. 5). The IUCN Red List Assessment for Chinese pangolin estimates that populations have declined by more than 80 percent (Challender et al., 2019c., p. 1). The population in mainland China was estimated at 50,000-100,000 individuals at the end of the 1990s, which equates to roughly an 89-94 percent decline overall in mainland China from the 1960s to the 1990s. In 2008, the population in mainland China was estimated to be 25,000-49,450 (Wu, 2004, p. 1; Zhang et al., 2022, p. 6). The Chinese pangolin has also disappeared
Genetic data provide a meaningful proxy for population health (Service 2025, p. 60). Recent genomics studies provide information on historical population trajectories, current population structure, effective population sizes, and genetic health across the species' range (Hu et al., 2020, entire; Wang et al., 2022, entire; Wei et al., 2024, entire). The most recent and comprehensive of these studies identified three main populations distributed across southern China. Within these populations, genomic data indicate declining population trends, reduced genetic diversity, high levels of inbreeding, and very small effective population sizes, all of which point to compromised population health (Wei et al., 2024, pp. 2-6). These findings corroborate other genetic studies that have identified reduced genetic diversity (Gu et al., 2023, pp. 5-7; Hu et al., 2020, pp. 802-807; Wang et al., 2022, pp. 4-7).
The Chinese pangolin is currently characterized by small effective population sizes, reduced genetic diversity, elevated levels of inbreeding, and increased genetic load, all of which are strong indicators of reduced viability and elevated extinction risk. Small effective population size makes a population more vulnerable to loss of genetic diversity through genetic drift and more likely to be impacted by inbreeding, which in turn, can reduce birth and survival rates. The highly reduced distribution of the Chinese pangolin adversely impacts the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events. The Chinese pangolin is therefore less able to withstand demographic and environmental stochasticity (
Harvest for bushmeat and other local uses is a historical and ongoing threat to Indian pangolins. Hunting by Tribal communities is deeply rooted in tradition because they rely on the meat as a source of protein and use the scales and claws for curios and traditional medicinal purposes (Mahmood et al., 2020, p. 84). Estimating the volume of domestic use of Indian pangolin bushmeat and scales throughout the species' range is challenging, in part because in India the legality of hunting varies by region. However, the Indian pangolin is thought to be declining across all range countries, as its low reproductive rate cannot keep pace with the rates of hunting (Gayen et al., 2024, p. 30). Population growth in rural areas increases the demand for bushmeat for subsistence hunting and pangolin parts for generating income (Nielsen et al., 2017, p. 285).
Starting in the early 2000s, Indian pangolin scales have been sourced in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and potentially Nepal for use in China (Mahmood et al., 2020, p. 84). Data from seizures of Indian pangolin scales suggest that around 1,724 Indian pangolins were trafficked internationally between 2011 and 2017 (Mahmood et al., 2020, p. 85). The apparent rise in trafficking of this species may be linked to the declining populations of Chinese and Sunda pangolins. It could also be associated with growing awareness of the financial value of pangolin scales (Mahmood et al., 2020, pp. 84-85). There is also evidence that organized crime networks are involved in the trafficking of Indian pangolins. Seized scales have been found in shipments also containing illegal arms, ammunition, drugs, and parts of other illegally traded species, implicating involvement of organized crime (Mohapatra et al., 2015, p. 34).
Habitat loss compounds the effects of harvest and poaching to reduce the number, health, and distribution of Indian pangolin populations. India, which encompasses the majority of the species' range, has the largest human population in the world and has experienced rapid land cover changes. Between 1880 and 2010, India lost 26 million ha of forest and 20 million ha of grasslands and shrublands to the expansion of croplands and urban development (H. Tian et al., 2014, p. 81). By 2000, only 8.6 percent of the Indian pangolin's range remained forested (Hansen et al. 2013, unpaginated; Global Forest Watch 2014, unpaginated).
The Indian pangolin is classified as critically endangered by the IUCN, with projected population declines exceeding 80 percent between 2019 and 2040, driven by extensive overexploitation and habitat loss (Mahmood et al., 2019, p. 1). Quantitative data on abundance is limited; however, reports of declines across several parts of the species' range are available (Mahmood et al., 2020, p. 83). Surveys conducted among local community members and indigenous hunters indicate that the Indian pangolin is considered very rare and is experiencing declines throughout most of its range (Akrim et al., 2017, p. 9924; D'Cruze et al., 2018, p. 98; Gayen et al., 2024, p. 30).
Genetic data provide a meaningful proxy for population health (Service 2025, p. 60). A genetic study using whole genome resequencing identified several metrics of poor genetic health for Indian pangolins. In particular, genetic diversity is very low (Gu et al., 2023, p. 5), lower even than the critically endangered black rhino. Genomic inbreeding is also elevated as are levels of genetic load, which point to potential negative fitness impacts of overall low genetic diversity and elevated inbreeding of Indian pangolin (Gu et al., 2023, p. 5). These indicators of poor genetic health are likely to be associated with overall reduced population fitness, adaptability, and viability (Kardos et al., 2021, entire; Willi et al., 2022, entire).
Indian pangolin is currently characterized by very low genetic diversity, highly elevated levels of inbreeding, and increased genetic load, all of which are strong indicators of reduced viability and elevated extinction risk. In addition, populations of Indian pangolins are declining. The Indian pangolin is therefore less able to withstand demographic and environmental stochasticity (
Harvest and poaching have been important historical stressors for the Sunda pangolin and have occurred throughout the species' range. The species has been widely used as a source of bushmeat and traditional medicine in Peninsular Malaysia, Malaysian Borneo, and Indonesia, as well as in Vietnam, where the species is also consumed as a luxury meat in urban areas (Challender et al., 2019b, pp. 11-12).
There is a long history of harvesting this species for its scales and leather for international trade. Harvest of the Sunda pangolin has increased over time as the availability of Chinese pangolins declined due to overexploitation (Challender et al., 2020, p. 261). Despite being a protected species in primary exporting countries (
Habitat loss is another threat interacting with harvest and poaching that is reducing the number, health, and distribution of Sunda pangolin populations. Since 2000, tree cover has decreased by 25 percent within the Sunda pangolin's range, a reduction driven by industrial plantations (
The Sunda pangolin is listed as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species due to population declines attributed to overexploitation (Challender et al., 2019b, p. 1). The species is declining in the majority of its range (Chong et al., 2020, p. 101). The IUCN Red List assessment estimates that populations have declined 80 percent between 1998 and 2019 due to overexploitation (Challender et al., 2019b, p. 1). Singapore may be home to the only stable population of Sunda pangolins, and it is estimated at roughly 1,046 individuals in 2019 (Chong et al., 2020, p. 101).
Genetic data provide a meaningful proxy for population health (Service 2025, p. 60). Two genetic studies using whole genome resequencing have identified several metrics of very poor genetic health for the Sunda pangolin. Both studies have found extremely low genetic diversity in Sunda pangolin populations (Gu et al., 2023, p. 5; Hu et al., 2020, p. 802), with values among the lowest for pangolin species, and much lower than heterozygosity values for the critically endangered black rhino. These studies also identified high levels of genomic inbreeding in Sunda pangolin populations, the highest of all pangolin species (Gu et al., 2023, p. 5). Finally, both studies identified elevated levels of genetic load, which point to potential negative fitness impacts of overall low genetic diversity and elevated inbreeding. These indicators of poor genetic health are likely to be associated with reduced fitness due to inbreeding, the accumulation of deleterious alleles (
Genetic structure within Sunda pangolin populations also varied between mainland individuals and those occupying Southeast Asian islands except Java (Hu et al., 2020, pp. 800-807), with mainland populations having lower genetic health metrics (Hu et al., 2020, pp. 802-806). These results indicate that while all Sunda pangolin populations included in the study have highly compromised genetic health, the mainland population is at even higher risk of more immediate deleterious impacts on fitness and viability.
The Sunda pangolin is currently characterized by very low genetic diversity, very high levels of inbreeding, and increased genetic load, all of which are strong indicators of reduced viability and elevated extinction risk. The reduced distribution of Sunda pangolin populations adversely impacts the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events. The Sunda pangolin is, therefore, less able to withstand demographic and environmental stochasticity (
Harvest for subsistence and traditional medicine has been an important historical stressor for the Philippine pangolin. Hunting is the leading threat to biodiversity in the Palawan region where the Philippine pangolin is endemic, and the species is harvested for food and traditional medicine throughout its range (Schoppe and Cruz, 2009, pp. 177, 182). The Philippine pangolin is a narrow endemic species, meaning its range is limited to Palawan Island and smaller surrounding islands (Schoppe et al., 2020, pp. 113-114). Though harvest for domestic use persists today, in the 2000s, several ethnic groups in the Palawan region began to shift from subsistence to market economies, with a concurrent increase in harvest of pangolins (Schoppe and Cruz, 2009, pp. 181-182). Consequently, the Philippine pangolin is currently hunted by both local and non-local hunters throughout the region and trafficked through the northern areas of Palawan; these pangolins are then traded locally, domestically, and internationally (Archer et al., 2021, pp. 5-8).
Although the Philippine pangolin has not historically been reported much in international trade and seizure records, there has been an increase in reports since 2010 (Archer et al., 2021, p. 4), and a sharp acceleration since 2016 (MacBeath et al., 2022, p. 1). The precise magnitude of this increase is unclear as some Philippine pangolins historically described in international trade and seizure records could have been Sunda pangolins, as they were not differentiated as separate species until 2005. Since 2013, the number of pangolin trade networks and actors involved in pangolin trafficking in Palawan has also increased and diversified (MacBeath et al., 2022, p. 19). The price of Philippine pangolin parts has also increased over the last few decades, likely due to growing demand in international markets (Schoppe and Cruz, 2009, p. 177; Archer et al., 2021, p. 9).
Habitat loss is also interacting with overexploitation to reduce the number, health, and distribution of the Philippine pangolin. Though peak deforestation in the Philippines occurred between 1977 and 1988, largely due to logging, high rates of
The Philippine pangolin is currently listed as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, and the population is declining, primarily due to overexploitation (Schoppe et al., 2019, p. 1). While there is a lack of quantitative data on populations, interviews with Indigenous peoples in the Palawan region and beyond indicate that the Philippine pangolin is becoming increasingly rare, and populations are declining throughout the region. Starting in the 2000s, reports of the species in the southern Palawan region were rare; however, in the north and central parts of the island, sightings of the Philippine pangolin were still commonly reported (Schoppe and Cruz, 2009, p. 178). More recently, declines in Philippine pangolin populations are reported to be particularly marked in the north. Locals estimate the population in the north has declined from 10,000 individuals to 500 between 1960 and 2018 (95 percent decline), and only 15 percent of the original population remains in the south (Acosta-Lagrada and Schoppe, 2018, p. 5).
Genetic data also provide a meaningful proxy for population health (Service 2025, p. 60). A genetic study using whole genome resequencing identified several metrics of poor genetic health for the Philippine pangolin; however, the sample size for the Philippine pangolin in the study was very small relative to other species (a single individual), so inferences are somewhat limited. From this one individual Philippine pangolin, the study identified the lowest genetic diversity of all pangolin species (Gu et al., 2023, p. 5). Genomic inbreeding was elevated (Gu et al., 2023, p. 5). Philippine pangolin also showed elevated levels of genetic load, which point to potential negative fitness impacts of overall low genetic diversity. These indicators of poor genetic health are likely to be associated with the accumulation of deleterious alleles (
The Philippine pangolin is currently characterized by very low genetic diversity, very high levels of inbreeding, and increased genetic load, all of which are strong indicators of reduced viability and elevated extinction risk. The reduced distribution of Philippine pangolin populations adversely impacts the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events. The Philippine pangolin is therefore less able to withstand demographic and environmental stochasticity (
Harvest for bushmeat and other local uses is a historical and ongoing threat to white-bellied pangolins. Pangolin meat is openly sold in markets and restaurants throughout the species' range (Soewu et al., 2020, p. 248). Bushmeat consumption in general has increased in West and Central Africa over the last few decades (Ziegler et al., 2016, p. 405), as has the availability of pangolins in markets in some areas (Soewu et al., 2020, p. 248). Pangolin products are also used in traditional medicine and for ritualistic purposes in Central Africa and in rural areas of West Africa, where most people depend on traditional medicine for healthcare (Soewu et al., 2020, pp. 243, 249; Soewu and Adekanola, 2011, p. 1). The white-bellied pangolin, in particular, is used extensively for traditional medicinal and ritualistic purposes in Benin and Nigeria (Jansen et al., 2020, p. 153; Zanvo et al., 2021, p. 1).
Two decades ago, there were an estimated 400,000 white-bellied pangolins harvested annually in Central Africa, and the species was estimated to constitute roughly 73 percent of the total pangolin harvest at that time (Fa and Peres, 2001, p. 228). A more recent study estimated a 150 percent increase in harvest of African pangolin species in Central Africa over the last four decades, and that harvest rates have averaged roughly 0.4 to 2.7 million pangolins annually during that time (Ingram et al., 2018, p. 1). The higher estimates of total harvest of African pangolin species, as compared to Asian pangolin species, is indicative of the shift in harvest pressure from Asia to Africa as populations of Asian pangolin species have declined due to overexploitation. Though some of this escalation in harvest is driven by local consumption, international trade is also a strong driver. Before 2001, roughly 93 percent of reported CITES trade in pangolins was Asian species; however, since 2001, roughly 67 percent involved African species (Heinrich et al., 2016, p. 247). As Asian pangolins have declined, harvest and trade of African pangolins has increased dramatically to meet the demand for scales in Asia (Tinsman et al., 2023, pp. 3-5; F. Zhang et al., 2022, p. 2). Consequently, a growing global trade network exists wherein the majority of pangolin scales are exported from Africa to Southeast Asia (Tinsman et al., 2023, entire; Zhang et al., 2020, pp. 4-8). Records indicate that at least 8,000 white-bellied pangolins were traded (mostly from Central Africa to China) from 2013 to 2016. This number importantly does not include unreported trade, illegal trade, or harvest for subsistence (Challender et al., 2020, p. 265).
Concurrently, the illegal trafficking of African pangolin species has increased over the last decade (Ingram et al., 2019a, p. 8). The price of pangolin products has increased dramatically across many regions of West and Central Africa, which can signal growing species rarity and motivate a shift toward harvest for income over subsistence. Importantly, protected areas within the species' range do not provide refuge for pangolin populations, as multiple protected areas are identified as poaching hotspots across the white-bellied pangolin range (Tinsman et al., 2023, pp. 2-5).
Organized crime is also increasingly implicated in the trafficking of African pangolin species, including the white-bellied pangolin. Cameroon is recognized as a major hub for trafficking, with its growing infrastructure and networks for siphoning pangolins from rural areas into urban markets, particularly as prices increase (Simo et al., 2023, pp. 704, 711; Zhang et al., 2020, pp. 4-8). Over the last decade, seizures in Cameroon have increasingly shifted from pangolin meat to scales and have included products from other protected species, indicative of involvement of organized crime (Ingram et al., 2019a, p. 8). White-bellied pangolins are commonly encountered in most seizures involving pangolins, and often the most commonly encountered in the wild. White-bellied pangolins are thought to represent a majority of the 624,000 African pangolin species seized between 2016 and 2019; however, these seizure
Extensive deforestation has occurred within the range of the white-bellied pangolin, particularly within the western portions. In the rainforest regions that the white-bellied pangolin occupies, an average of roughly 0.59 million hectares of rainforest were lost annually between 1990 and 2000 to logging, roads, urban development, and agricultural expansion (Mayaux et al., 2013, pp. 4-5). From 2001 to 2023, the white-bellied pangolin experienced an additional 10 percent loss of forested habitat (Hansen et al., 2013, unpaginated; Global Forest Watch, 2014, unpaginated). Though forest loss has occurred throughout the species' range in the last two decades, it has been greatest in West Africa, where deforestation rates were three times higher than in the rest of the species' range (Ingram et al., 2019b, p. 2; Mayaux et al., 2013, p. 1). Forest losses have reduced the availability and quality of habitat for the white-bellied pangolin, while also increasing human interactions and harvest pressure. Forest loss can directly impact the white-bellied pangolin, particularly since forest age appears to be a strong driver of occurrence for the species, which appears to prefer older successional forests (Akpona et al., 2008, pp. 198, 200).
Overexploitation and habitat loss have caused substantial declines in the number, health, and distribution of white-bellied pangolin populations. Though it is one of the more commonly encountered African pangolin species, it is not considered to be common within its range (Jansen et al., 2020, pp. 151-152; Waterman et al., 2014, p. 4). The white-bellied pangolin is estimated to have experienced a 40 percent decline in the period 1998-2019 (Pietersen et al., 2019, p. 1).
Genetic data also provide a meaningful proxy for population health (Service 2025, p. 60). The white-bellied pangolin shows the best metrics of genetic health of the eight pangolin species (Gu et al., 2023, pp. 5-7). Despite this, genetic diversity in particular is relatively low, falling between IUCN endangered ring-tailed lemurs and IUCN critically endangered black rhinos (Wilder et al., 2023, entire; Service, 2025, p. 126). Additionally, genetic indicators show a time lag relative to recent population declines, meaning that contemporary population declines are likely not yet manifesting in genomic sequence data (Gargiulo et al., 2024, entire). As populations continue to decline due to poaching and other threats, indicators of genetic health are expected to further deteriorate along a trajectory that is similar to genetic health metrics seen in other pangolin species.
The white-bellied pangolin is currently characterized by reduced genetic diversity and increased genetic load, both of which are strong indicators of reduced viability and elevated extinction risk. The reduced distribution of white-bellied pangolin adversely impacts the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events. The white-bellied pangolin is therefore less able to withstand demographic and environmental stochasticity (
Harvest for bushmeat and other local uses is a historical and ongoing threat to black-bellied pangolins. Pangolin meat is openly sold in markets and restaurants throughout the species' range (Soewu et al., 2020, p. 248). Bushmeat consumption in general has increased in West and Central Africa over the last few decades (Ziegler et al., 2016, p. 405), as has the availability of pangolins in markets in some areas (Soewu et al., 2020, p. 248). Pangolin products are also used in traditional medicine and for ritualistic purposes in Central Africa and in rural areas of West Africa, where most people depend on traditional medicine for healthcare (Soewu et al., 2020, pp. 243, 249; Soewu and Adekanola, 2011, p. 1; Zanvo et al., 2021, p. 1).
Harvest of African pangolin species has intensified in recent decades and pangolins are increasingly reaching commercial international markets. The higher estimates of total harvest of African pangolin species, as compared to Asian pangolin species, is indicative of the shift in harvest pressure from Asia to Africa as Asian pangolin species have declined due to overexploitation. Though some of this escalation in harvest may be driven by local consumption, international trade is also strongly implicated. Before 2001, Asian species accounted for roughly 93 percent of reported CITES trade in pangolins. However, since 2001, roughly 67 percent of reported trade involved African species (Heinrich et al., 2016, p. 247). As Asian pangolins have declined, harvest and trade of African pangolins has increased dramatically to meet the demand for scales and meat in Asia (Zhang et al., 2022, p. 2). There is consequently a growing global trade network where the majority of pangolin scales are exported from Africa to Southeast Asia (Gossé et al., 2024, p. 2).
Concurrently, illegal trafficking of African pangolin species has increased over the last decade (Ingram et al., 2019a, p. 8). An estimated 624,000 African pangolin species were seized between 2016 and 2019 alone; however, the actual volume of illegal trade is dramatically higher as most trafficking goes undetected (Challender et al., 2020, pp. 267-268). Though authorities know with high confidence that the trade in African pangolin species has increased over time, and that all four species of African pangolin are involved, less information is available on how much of this trade is specifically composed of black-bellied pangolins, or of specific harvest rates for this pangolin species (Challender et al., 2020, p. 268).
Extensive deforestation has occurred in the range of the black-bellied pangolin, particularly in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In the rainforest regions occupied by the black-bellied pangolin, an average of 0.59 million ha of rainforest were lost annually between 1990 and 2000 due to logging, roads, urban development, and agricultural expansion (Mayaux et al., 2013, pp. 4-5). From 2001 to 2023, the black-bellied pangolin experienced an additional 11 percent loss of tree cover throughout its range. Though forest loss has occurred throughout the species' range in the last two decades, it has been greatest in West Africa, where deforestation rates were three times higher than in the rest of the species' range (Ingram et al., 2019b, p. 2; Mayaux et al., 2013, p. 1). Collectively, these land cover changes have reduced the availability and quality of habitat for the black-bellied pangolin, while also increasing human interactions and harvest pressure.
Forest loss can have a pronounced impact on the black-bellied pangolin as it is highly arboreal, and shows a preference for densely vegetated, undisturbed habitat (Gudehus et al., 2020a, pp. 134-135). Even in areas where plantations provide some tree cover, habitat quality can be markedly diminished, due to fragmentation from roads and infrastructure, and the presence of pesticides that reduce prey diversity and availability (Pietersen et
Overexploitation, and habitat loss have caused substantial declines in the number, health, and distribution of black-bellied pangolin populations. The black-bellied pangolin is considered in decline throughout its range (Ingram et al., 2019, p. 2). The IUCN has estimated that the species has experienced 30-40 percent population decline since 2005 due to loss of suitable habitat and unsustainable hunting, though declines are likely greater, and as high as 50 percent in West Africa where deforestation rates and human population density are particularly high (Ingram et al., 2019, pp. 1-2).
Genetic data also provide a meaningful proxy for population health (Service 2025, p. 60). A genetic study identified several metrics of poor genetic health for black-bellied pangolin populations. In particular, genetic diversity is low (Gu et al., 2023, p. 5), lower than the critically endangered black rhino. Genomic inbreeding is also elevated (Gu et al., 2023, p. 5). The study also identified elevated levels of genetic load, which point to potential negative fitness impacts of overall low genetic diversity and elevated inbreeding. These indicators of poor genetic health are likely associated with reduced fitness due to inbreeding, the accumulation of deleterious alleles (
The black-bellied pangolin is currently characterized by low genetic diversity, elevated levels of genomic inbreeding, and increased genetic load, all of which are indicators of reduced viability and elevated extinction risk. The reduced distribution of black-bellied pangolin populations adversely impacts the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events. The black-bellied pangolin is therefore less able to withstand demographic and environmental stochasticity (
Harvest for bushmeat and other local uses is a historical and ongoing threat to the giant pangolin. Unsustainable hunting for bushmeat is a primary threat to the species. This threat is becoming more frequently observed and is compounded by growing international trafficking (Hoffmann et al., 2020, p. 169). Pangolin meat is sold in markets throughout the species' range (Soewu et al., 2020, p. 248), and the giant pangolin is the most valuable target for hunters in Cameroon due to its size and large scales (Simo et al., 2023, p. 711). Bushmeat consumption in general has increased in West and Central Africa over the last few decades (Ziegler et al., 2016, p. 405), as has the availability of pangolins in markets in some areas (Soewu et al., 2020, p. 248). Pangolin products are also used in traditional medicine and for ritualistic purposes in Central Africa and in rural areas of West Africa, where most people depend on traditional medicine for healthcare (Soewu et al., 2020, pp. 243, 249; Soewu and Adekanola, 2011, p. 1).
There has been an estimated 150 percent increase in the harvest of African pangolin species in Central Africa over the last four decades, with an estimated 0.4 to 2.7 million pangolins harvested annually on average (Ingram et al., 2018, p. 1). Though some of this escalation in harvest is driven by local consumption, international trade is also strongly implicated. Before 2001, roughly 93 percent of reported CITES trade in pangolins was of Asian species (7 percent African). However, since 2001, roughly 67 percent of pangolin trade involved African species (33 percent Asian) (Heinrich et al., 2016, p. 247). As Asian pangolin species have declined, harvest and trade of African pangolin species has increased dramatically to meet the demand for scales and meat in Asia (Zhang et al., 2022, p. 2). Consequently, a global trade network is growing, with the majority of pangolin scales currently exported from Africa to Southeast Asia (Gossé et al., 2024, p. 2).
There has been a concurrent increase in illegal trafficking of African pangolin species, including the giant pangolin, over the last decade (Ingram et al., 2019, p. 8). Over the last decade, seizures have increasingly shifted from pangolin meat to scales and include products from other protected species, implicating the involvement of organized crime (Ingram et al., 2019, p. 8). The prevalence, number of, and price of giant pangolin products has also increased dramatically across many regions of West and Central Africa, which can signal growing species rarity and motivate a shift toward harvest for income as well as subsistence (Hoffmann et al., 2020, pp. 168-169).
Collectively, land cover changes have reduced the availability and quality of habitat for the giant pangolin, while also increasing human interactions and harvest pressure. Extensive deforestation has occurred in the range of the giant pangolin, particularly in the west. In the rainforest regions that the giant pangolin occupies, an average of roughly 0.59 million ha of rainforest were lost annually between 1990 and 2000 due to logging, roads, urban development, and agricultural expansion (Mayaux et al., 2013, pp. 4-5). From 2001 to 2023, the giant pangolin lost an additional 11 percent of tree cover. Though forest loss has occurred throughout the species' range in the last two decades, loss has been greatest in West Africa, where deforestation rates were three times higher than in Central Africa (Ingram et al., 2019, p. 2; Mayaux et al., 2013, p. 1).
Available data suggest that the giant pangolin is not common in any part of its range and is generally rare (Hoffmann et al., 2020, p. 167). The giant pangolin has been considered to be rare, declining throughout much of its range, and since the 1990s, is considered to be extirpated in Rwanda, Niger, and southwest Nigeria (Bräutigam et al., 1994, p. 17). Genetic data also provide a meaningful proxy for population health (Service 2025, p. 60).
A genetic study using whole genome resequencing identified several metrics of poor genetic health for the giant pangolin. In particular, genetic diversity is low (Gu et al., 2023, p. 5), comparable to the critically endangered black rhino. Genomic inbreeding is also elevated (Gu et al., 2023, p. 5). The study also identified elevated levels of genetic load, which point to potential negative fitness impacts due to inbreeding, the accumulation of deleterious alleles, reduced evolutionary potential, and overall reduced population fitness,
The giant pangolin is currently characterized by low genetic diversity, elevated levels of genomic inbreeding, and increased genetic load, all of which are indicators of elevated extinction risk. The reduced distribution of giant pangolin populations adversely impacts the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events. The giant pangolin is therefore less able to withstand demographic and environmental stochasticity (
As part of the SSA, we also considered the future magnitude of threats of overexploitation, land cover trends, and climate change and the projected responses of the Chinese, Indian, Sunda, Philippine, white-bellied, black-bellied, and giant pangolin. We assumed that current trends are anticipated to continue into the future, and that these species' responses would remain similar to observed responses in current conditions. Because we determined that the current condition of the Chinese, Indian, Sunda, Philippine, white-bellied, black-bellied, and giant pangolin are consistent with an endangered species (see Determination of Status for Seven Pangolin Species, below), we are not presenting the results of the assessment of magnitude and extent of future threats in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2025, pp. 74, 83-84, 95-98, 108-110, 126-130, 141-145, 158-162).) for the full analysis of future magnitude of threats.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” as a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Section 3 of the Act defines “endangered species” and “threatened species.” An endangered species is any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species is any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Both definitions include not only the phrase “throughout all,” but also the phrase “or a significant portion of its range.” Thus, there are ultimately four bases for listing a species under the Act: (1) in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, (2) in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, (3) likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, or (4) likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. These four bases are made up of two classifications (
Beginning in 2001, a number of judicial opinions addressed our interpretation of the phrase “or a significant portion of its range” (the SPR phrase) in the statutory definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” In
In an attempt to address the judicial opinions calling into question our approach to evaluating whether a species was endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service published a “Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ‘Endangered Species’ and ‘Threatened Species’ (2014 SPR Policy; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The notice of the draft policy provides more detail about litigation before 2014 regarding the phrase (76 FR 76987, December 9, 2011). The 2014 SPR Policy included four elements:
(1) Consequence—that the consequence of determining that a species warrants listing based on its status in a significant portion of its range is to list the species throughout all of its range;
(2) Significance—a definition of the term “significant”;
(3) Range—that the species' “range” is the current range of the species; and
(4) Distinct Population Segment (DPS)—that, if a [vertebrate] species is endangered or threatened in an SPR and the population in that SPR is a DPS, the Service will list just the DPS.
Subsequently, two district courts vacated the definition of “significant” contained in the 2014 SPR Policy (
In 2020, another court (
In short, the courts have directed that the definition of “significant” must afford the phrase “or a significant portion of its range” an independent meaning from the “throughout all of its range” phrase. Therefore, to determine whether any species warrants listing, we determine for each classification (endangered and threatened) the appropriate component to evaluate (throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion of its range).
We make this determination based on whether the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the species has a similar extinction risk in all areas across its range (at a scale that is biologically appropriate for that species). When a species has a similar extinction risk in all areas across its range, we determine its regulatory status using the component “throughout all of its range.” For example, in some cases there is no way to divide a species' range in a way that is biologically appropriate. This could be because the range is so small that there is only one population or because the species functions as a metapopulation such that effects to one population directly result in effects to another population. On the other hand, when the species' extinction risk varies across its range, we determine its regulatory status using the component “throughout a significant portion of its range.”
For either classification (endangered or threatened), we consider the five factors and the species' responses to those factors regardless of which component (throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion of its range) we have determined is appropriate for that classification. When assessing whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, we address two questions because we must determine whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is “significant” and (2) the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout that portion. We may address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Best available commercial and scientific data indicate a high rate of decline in abundance and distribution of the Chinese pangolin, further supported by genetic analysis indicating high levels of inbreeding and very low genetic diversity. Overexploitation and habitat loss, the primary threats to the Chinese pangolin, have reduced the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species to the point that even in the absence of existing threats, the species would have very low viability.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the Chinese pangolin has declined in abundance, genetic health, and range because of the historical and ongoing threats of overexploitation (Factor B) and habitat loss (Factor A) and that these declines have continued unabated under existing regulatory mechanisms such as the insufficient implementation and enforcement of CITES protections by importing, transit, and exporting countries (Factor D), such that the species is at risk of extinction. This risk is immediate rather than based upon future conditions. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Chinese pangolin is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Chinese pangolin meets the Act's definition of an endangered species because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we propose to list the Chinese pangolin as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The best available commercial and scientific data indicate that the Indian pangolin is considered rare and declining throughout its historical range primarily due to overexploitation and habitat loss and fragmentation. In addition, genetic analysis indicates very low genetic diversity and elevated rates of inbreeding and genetic load, all of which limit adaptive capacity and contribute to compromised overall viability of the species. The primary threats to the Indian pangolin have reduced the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species to the point that even in the absence of existing threats, the species would have very low viability.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the Indian pangolin has declined in abundance, genetic health, and range because of the historical and ongoing threats of overexploitation (Factor B) and habitat loss (Factor A) and that these declines have continued unabated under existing regulatory mechanisms such as the insufficient implementation and enforcement of CITES protections by importing, transit, and exporting countries (Factor D), such that the species is at risk of extinction. This risk is immediate rather than based upon future conditions. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Indian pangolin is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Indian pangolin meets the Act's definition of an endangered species because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we propose to list the Indian pangolin as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The best available commercial and scientific data indicate a high rate of decline in abundance and distribution of the Sunda pangolin, and this information is further supported by genetic analysis indicating high levels of inbreeding, elevated levels of genetic load, and very low genetic diversity. Overexploitation and habitat loss, the primary threats to the species, have reduced the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species to the point that even in the absence of existing threats, the species would have very low viability.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the Sunda pangolin has declined in abundance, genetic health, and range because of the
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Sunda pangolin meets the Act's definition of an endangered species because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we propose to list the Sunda pangolin as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The best available commercial and scientific data indicate a high rate of decline in abundance within the Philippine pangolin's limited range, and this information is further supported by genetic analysis indicating high levels of inbreeding, elevated levels of genetic load, and very low genetic diversity. Overexploitation and habitat loss, the primary historical and ongoing threats to the Philippine pangolin, have reduced the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species to the point that even in the absence of existing threats, the species would have very low viability.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the Philippine pangolin has declined in abundance, genetic health, and range because of the historical and ongoing threats of overexploitation (Factor B) and habitat loss (Factor A). We further find that these declines have continued unabated under existing regulatory mechanisms, such as the insufficient implementation and enforcement of CITES protections by importing, transit, and exporting countries (Factor D), such that the species is at risk of extinction. This risk is immediate rather than based upon future conditions. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Philippine pangolin is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Philippine pangolin meets the Act's definition of an endangered species because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we propose to list the Philippine pangolin as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The best available commercial and scientific data indicate a trend of declining abundance and constricting distribution of the white-bellied pangolin, and this information is further supported by genetic analysis indicating elevated levels of genetic load and low genetic diversity. The shift over time from poaching and hunting in the western portion of the species' range to Central Africa, as well as the shifting changes in land use, indicate a pattern that, although there may be higher abundance in Central Africa as compared with western Africa, declines in abundance have already occurred and will continue in Central Africa such that the western and central portions of the species' range are equally at risk of extinction. Overexploitation and habitat loss, the primary threats to the species, have reduced the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species to the point that even in the absence of existing threats, the species would have very low viability.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the white-bellied pangolin has declined in abundance, genetic health, and range because of the historical and ongoing threats of overexploitation (Factor B) and habitat loss (Factor A). We further find that these declines have continued unabated under existing regulatory mechanisms, such as the insufficient implementation and enforcement of CITES protections by importing, transit, and exporting countries (Factor D), such that the species is at risk of extinction. This risk is immediate rather than based upon future conditions. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the white-bellied pangolin is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the white-bellied pangolin meets the Act's definition of an endangered species because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we propose to list the white-bellied pangolin as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The best available commercial and scientific data indicate a trend of declining abundance and constricting distribution of the historically rare, black-bellied pangolin, and this information is further supported by genetic analysis indicating elevated levels of genetic load and low genetic diversity among populations. The shift over time from poaching and hunting in the western range to Central Africa, as well as the shifting changes in land use, indicate a pattern that, although there may be higher abundance in Central Africa as compared with western Africa, declines in abundance have already occurred and will continue in Central Africa such that the western and central portions of the species' range are equally at risk of extinction. Overexploitation and habitat loss, the primary threats to the species, have reduced the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species to the point that even in the absence of existing threats, the species would have very low viability.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the black-bellied pangolin has declined in abundance, genetic health, and range because of the historical and ongoing threats of overexploitation (Factor B) and habitat loss (Factor A). We further find that these declines have continued unabated under existing regulatory mechanisms, such as the insufficient implementation and enforcement of CITES protections by importing, transit, and exporting countries (Factor D), such that the species is at risk of extinction. This risk is immediate rather than based upon future conditions. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the black-bellied pangolin is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the black-bellied pangolin meets the Act's definition of an endangered species because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we propose to list the black-bellied pangolin as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The best available commercial and scientific data indicate a trend of declining abundance and highly restricted distribution of giant pangolin populations as compared with its historical range, and this information is further supported by genetic analysis indicating elevated levels of genetic load, inbreeding, and low genetic diversity. Overexploitation and habitat loss, the primary threats to the species, have reduced the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species to the point that even in the absence of existing threats, the species would have very low viability.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the giant pangolin has declined in abundance, genetic health, and range because of the historical and ongoing threats of overexploitation (Factor B) and habitat loss (Factor A). We further find that these declines have continued unabated under existing regulatory mechanisms, such as the insufficient implementation and enforcement of CITES protections by importing, transit, and exporting countries (Factor D), such that the species is at risk of extinction. This risk is immediate rather than based upon future conditions. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the giant pangolin is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the giant pangolin meets the Act's definition of an endangered species because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we propose to list the giant pangolin as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7 of the Act is titled, “Interagency Cooperation,” and it mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. With respect to all pangolin species, no known actions require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Given the regulatory definition of “action” at 50 CFR 402.02, which clarifies that it applies to activities or programs carried out “in the United States or upon the high seas,” the pangolin is unlikely to be the subject of section 7 consultations, because the entire life cycles of these seven species occur in terrestrial areas outside of the United States and these species are unlikely to be affected by U.S. Federal actions. Additionally, no critical habitat will be designated for any pangolin species because, under 50 CFR 424.12(g), we will not designate critical habitat within foreign countries or in other areas outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.
Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the provision of limited financial assistance for the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the Service's implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued: for scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. For example, the provisions in section 9(b)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(b)(1)) provide a limited exemption from certain otherwise prohibited activities regarding wildlife specimens held in captivity or in a controlled environment on the date they were first subject to the Act, provided that such
Section 9(b)(1) was amended in the 1982 amendments to the Act (96 Stat. 1426-27), to clarify that the scope of the 9(b)(1) exemption is limited to only certain section 9(a)(1) prohibitions, that the exemption does not apply to pre-Act wildlife held or used in the course of a commercial activity on or after the pre-Act date for the species, and that the pre-Act date for species first listed after the enactment of the Act is the date of publication in the
Therefore, for pre-Act wildlife, there is a limited exemption from the prohibitions associated with: (1) import into, or export from the United States of any endangered wildlife, or (2) violation of regulations pertaining to threatened or endangered wildlife. Other prohibitions of section 9—including those at section 9(a)(1)(B)-(F), regarding take of endangered wildlife, possession and other acts with unlawfully taken wildlife, interstate or foreign commerce in endangered wildlife, and sale or offer for sale of endangered wildlife—continue to apply to activities with qualifying endangered pre-Act wildlife specimens. For threatened species, prohibitions are promulgated by regulation under section 4(d) of the Act, and a specimen may qualify for the exemption in 9(a)(1)(G) with regard to regulatory violations. Specimens born after the listing date and specimens taken from the wild after the listing date do not qualify as pre-Act wildlife under the text of section 9(b)(1) of the Act. If a person engages in any commercial activity with a pre-Act specimen, the wildlife would immediately cease to qualify as pre-Act wildlife and become subject to the relevant prohibitions, because it has been held or used in the course of a commercial activity.
Additional requirements apply to activities with all pangolins, separate from their proposed listing as endangered species. As CITES-listed species, all international trade of any pangolin by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States must also comply with CITES requirements pursuant to section 9 paragraphs (c) and (g) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(c) and (g)) and to 50 CFR part 23. As “fish or wildlife” (16 U.S.C. 1532(8)), pangolin imports and exports must also meet applicable wildlife import/export requirements established under section 9, paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(d), (e), and (f)); the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this action on May 6, 2025, for publication. On May 30, 2025, Paul Souza authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(h) * * *
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by July 17, 2025 will be considered. 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 collection accounts for the burden from the FRA which gradually increases the upper age limit of the age-based exception three times over the next year and created three new exceptions from the time limit for individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, and individuals aging out of foster care. The FRA also provided that these changes sunset on October 1, 2030. The Department proposed to update regulations to incorporate the final age increase, add the three new exceptions and definitions for each, and codify that the changes to exceptions sunset on October 1, 2030.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meeting via ZoomGov on Wednesday, July 9, 2025, from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. PT. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and possibly vote on proposed topics.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, July 9, 2025, from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. PT.
Kayla Fajota, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments can be sent via email to Kayla Fajota (DFO) at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that slag pots from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is April 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable June 17, 2025.
George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on January 28, 2025.
The products covered by this investigation are slag pots from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for the China-wide entity which includes: (1) Chaeng Great Wall Casting Co., Ltd.; (2) Chaugzhou Jinyuan Machinery Equipment Ltd. Co.; (3) China Minmetals Corporation; (4) Dawang Metals Co. Ltd.; (5) Dehua Protech Innovation Co., Ltd.; (6) Liaoning Mineral and Metallurgy Group Co. Ltd.; (7) MCC Baosteel Technology Services Co., Ltd.; (8) Shantou Huaxing Metallurgical Equipment Co. Ltd.; (9) Shaoguan Germany China Metal Group, Ltd.; (10) Shenyang Minmetal Import & Export Co., Ltd.; and (11) UMECC Beijing Equipment Co., Ltd. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination,
In the
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated dumping margin exists:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce has offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rate(s). Any such adjusted rates may be found in the “Preliminary Determination” section's chart of estimated weighted-average dumping margins above.
Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting cash deposits at a rate equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated in this preliminary determination unadjusted for the passed-through domestic subsidies or for export subsidies at the time the CVD provisional measures expire.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily determined that all companies are part of the China-wide entity and assigned to the China-wide entity, as AFA, a rate that is based solely on the margin alleged in the Petition, there are no calculations to disclose.
Because no companies in this investigation demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate, Commerce preliminarily determines that all companies are part of the China-wide entity; therefore, verification will not be conducted.
Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 14 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide a public executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; (3) and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined.
Section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1) provide that Commerce will issue the final determination within 75 days after the date of its preliminary determination. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 75 days after the signature date of this preliminary determination.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is slag pots with a nominal capacity of 65 cubic feet to 1200 cubic feet regardless of shape, form, or finish.
Slag pots are load bearing devices typically formed as a curved shell or bowl-shaped container. Slag pots are metallurgical goods typically produced either using a casting process or a fabrication process (
Slag pots are included within the scope whether finished or unfinished, whether imported individually or with other subject or non-subject merchandise, or whether assembled with attachments or unassembled. Finishing includes, but is not limited to, arc washing, welding, grinding, shot blasting, heat treatment, machining, and assembly of various parts.
The country of origin for slag pots whether fully assembled, unfinished or finished, is the country where the slag pot was cast or forged. Subject merchandise includes slag pots that have been further processed or further assembled in a third country. Further processing and further assembly include, but is not limited to, arc washing, welding, grinding, shot blasting, heat treatment, painting, coating, priming, machining, and assembly of attachments.
Slag pots subject to the investigation are specified within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7309.00.0090 and 8454.20.0080. The slag pot attachments covered by the scope of this investigation may enter under HTSUS subheadings 7316.00.0000, 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7325.99.5000, and 7326.19.0080. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 18, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Maureen O'Reilly, Management Analyst, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 or by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Maureen O'Reilly, Management Analyst, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 301-975-3189,
In accordance with Executive Order 12862, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a non-regulatory agency of the Department of Commerce, proposes to conduct a number of surveys—both quantitative and qualitative—designed to evaluate our current programs from a customer's perspective. NIST proposes to perform program evaluation data collections by means of, but not limited to, focus groups, reply cards that accompany product distributions, and
NIST will collect this information by electronic means, when possible, as well as by mail, telephone and person-to-person interviews.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of closed meeting.
The Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Judges Panel) reports the results of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award) activities to the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) each year, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process. The purpose of this meeting is to review the results of examiners' ratings of applications. Panel members will vote on which applicants merit site visits by examiners to verify the accuracy of quality improvements claimed by applicants. The meeting is closed to the public to protect the proprietary data to be examined and discussed.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1001
The closed meeting will only be accessible via teleconference.
Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, phone: 301-975-2361, email
The Judges Panel, composed of approximately nine members preeminent in the field of organizational performance excellence and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, makes an annual report on the results of Award activities to the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), along with its recommendations for improvement of the Award process.
The meeting will include a discussion of the 2025 Baldrige Award process, including the identification of which award applicant organizations should be advanced to the site visit phase. The meeting will include discussions of lessons learned from the 2024 judging process and on the 2024 Award process.
The agenda may change to accommodate the Judges Panel's business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Baldrige Performance Excellence website at
There will be no open session during this meeting.
There will be no public participation during this meeting; therefore, public accommodations will not be necessary.
There will be no public participation during this meeting.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Deputy Secretary of Commerce, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the August 13, 2025 meeting of the Judges Panel may be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) because the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and are privileged or confidential, and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) because the meeting is likely to disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. This meeting is closed to the public in order to protect the proprietary data to be examined and discussed.
If the meeting is canceled, a cancellation notice will be posted on the website at:
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of matching fund opportunity; request for proposals.
This notice invites non-Federal entities to partner with the ocean and coastal mapping programs of NOAA's National Ocean Service on jointly-funded projects of mutual interest and establishes selection criteria and submission requirements for such projects under the Brennan Ocean Mapping Fund opportunity. With this funding opportunity, NOAA will match selected non-Federal partners at a 70:30/NOAA:partner ratio for projects proposing to contract for ocean, coastal, and/or Great Lakes mapping data totaling up to $1,000,000 per project. Selected non-Federal partners further benefit from this opportunity by leveraging NOAA's contracting and data management expertise. This ocean and coastal mapping funding opportunity is subject to the availability of funds.
Please note the following dates associated with this opportunity:
•
•
• Proposal submission and selection timeline:
• Statements of interest or proposals as described in Section VI of
• NOAA plans to issue its decision on the proposals in December 2025. NOAA will then work with selected project partners to develop draft agreements by the end of January 2026.
• Following final agreement approval, project partners will be expected to transfer their matching funds to NOAA in June to September 2026. Funds must be transferred before October 1, 2026.
• NOAA would issue task orders to its survey contractors under these agreements from January to September 2027.
For additional information, including a summary of the informational webinar, presentation slides, and questions and answers, visit:
• Register for the informational webinar by Thursday, August 14, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. ET at
• Request a 30-minute time slot during virtual office hours by September 17, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. ET at
• Proposals must be submitted via email by Friday, October 10, 2025, at 5 p.m. ET to
Meredith Westington, NOAA Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping, 505-278-9851,
NOAA's Office of Coast Survey (OCS) and National Geodetic Survey (NGS) conduct mapping activities that are foundational to maritime commerce, domestic energy and seafood production, tourism and recreation, and hazard mitigation and emergency response, among other interests. NOAA has considerable hydrographic and shoreline mapping contracting expertise, including a cutting-edge understanding of the science and related acoustic systems as well as data standards to ensure broad usability of that data.
The Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act establishes the Interagency Working Group on Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IWG-OCM) and directs NOAA to use the IWG-OCM to “establish and maintain a program to coordinate comprehensive Federal ocean and coastal mapping efforts.” (33 U.S.C. 3501, 3502) NOAA is committed to meeting this mapping requirement as collaboratively as possible and adhering to the Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IOCM) principle of “Map Once, Use Many Times.” However, the resources needed to fully achieve the goal of comprehensively mapping U.S. waters and coasts currently exceed the capacity of NOAA and its Federal partners. Mapping the full extent of waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction relies on non-Federal partners to contribute to the effort.
The Brennan Ocean Mapping Fund, which was established by statute in 2022 (33 U.S.C. 3504a, 3506), is one way that NOAA seeks to increase the coordinated acquisition, processing, stewardship, and archival of new ocean and coastal mapping data in U.S. waters. NOAA Rear Admiral Richard T. Brennan, former OCS Director and former President of the Hydrographic Society of America, was one of IOCM's strongest advocates. Sadly, Rear Admiral Brennan passed away in May 2021. IOCM continues to implement Rear Admiral Brennan's vision and passion for collaborative ocean mapping through this matching fund opportunity named in his honor.
This notice invites non-Federal entities to partner with the ocean and coastal mapping programs of NOAA's National Ocean Service on jointly-funded projects of mutual interest that address the strategic areas of focus noted in section III. These projects will establish ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes survey and mapping partnerships using NOAA's geospatial contracting vehicles with pre-qualified technical experts in surveying and mapping. NOAA will use the selection criteria and submission requirements described below in sections V and VI, respectively, to review project proposals.
The goal of this Brennan Ocean Mapping Fund opportunity is to leverage NOAA and non-Federal partner funds to acquire more ocean and coastal mapping data from qualified contract surveyors during Fiscal Year (FY) 2027, which spans October 1, 2026, to September 30, 2027. Subject to the availability of funds, NOAA will provide up to 70 percent of the total project cost, with the selected entity providing at least 30 percent of the total project cost. For example, for a $1 million project, NOAA would provide up to $700,000, and the partner must provide at least $300,000.
Subject to the availability of funds, NOAA anticipates funding between two and five projects, with a total cost of up to $1 million per project. NOAA may consider providing additional funding for a project, thereby exceeding $1 million, subject to the availability of funds and NOAA's discretion. All
In addition to providing matching funds, NOAA brings its expertise to manage survey planning, quality assure all data and products, provide the data and products to the partners within an agreed-upon timeframe, and handle data submission to NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information for archiving and public accessibility. All ocean and coastal data and related products from the Brennan Ocean Mapping Fund program will be available to the public to the greatest extent allowed by applicable laws. The specific value-added services NOAA will provide include:
• Assurance that the data are collected by qualified survey contractors to ensure broadest use and accessibility of the data;
• Project management and GIS-based task order planning, negotiation, and award of necessary procurement contracts that are tailored to meet the interests of matching fund partners and ensure the most efficient use of mapping platforms (
• Data processing, quality assessment, and review of all acquired hydrographic data; and
• Data management and stewardship through data archive at the National Centers for Environmental Information.
Data acquisition collection methods include, but are not limited to, multibeam echosounder, side scan sonar, lidar (topographic, bathymetric, mobile), subsurface and airborne feature investigations, and sediment sampling. Products acquired may include, but are not limited to:
• Bathymetric data (multibeam, single beam, lidar);
• Backscatter;
• Water column (depth dependent);
• Side scan sonar imagery;
• Feature detection reports;
• Sensor/data corrections and calibrations (
• Survey and control services, including the installation, operation, and removal of temporary water level and Global Navigation Satellite System Observations;
• High-resolution topographic/bathymetric product generation; and
• A final project report.
More information on NOAA's contracted surveying and mapping processes and products can be found in the:
• OCS Hydrographic Surveys Contract Vehicle at
• NGS Scope of Work for Shoreline Mapping at
For this opportunity, proposals will be considered that align with national priorities and the goals of the National Strategy for Mapping, Exploring, and Characterizing the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (NOMEC, 2020) and associated Implementation Plan (NOMEC IP, 2024); the Implementation Plan for the Alaska Coastal Mapping Strategy (ACMS IP, 2022); and the OCS Strategic Plan 2023-2027 (all available at:
1.
2.
3.
The following resources may be used to support project proposals:
• the U.S. Mapping Coordination website, a collaboration site for mapping data acquisition, shows current NOAA mapping plans as well as the latest in Federal mapping priorities and select regional mapping priorities:
• the U.S. Bathymetry Coverage and Gap Analysis and associated Bathymetric Coverage Report tool:
• the U.S. Interagency Elevation Inventory:
More information on NOAA's surveying and mapping contracting vehicles is available at
This matching fund opportunity is available to non-Federal entities. Examples of non-Federal entities include State and local governments, Tribal entities, universities, researchers and academia, the private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and philanthropic partners. Qualifying proposals must demonstrate the ability to provide at least 30 percent of the funds needed for the proposed project. A coalition of non-Federal entities may assemble funds for the match and submit a proposal jointly; however, NOAA will request a central point of contact to initiate the transfer of funds to NOAA. Use of other Federal agency funds as part of the non-Federal entity's or entities' match funds will be considered on a case-by-case basis and only as authorized by applicable laws. In-kind contributions to strengthen the project proposal are welcome; however, they do not count toward the match and are not required.
Proposals will be evaluated by the Brennan Ocean Mapping Fund Program Management Team. Submissions will be ranked based on the following selection criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
During the proposal review period, the Brennan Ocean Mapping Fund Program Management Team reserves the right to engage with proposal points of contact to ask questions and provide feedback on project costs and feasibility.
1. A project title; executive summary (3-5 sentences); and the names, affiliations, and roles of the project partners and any co-investigators, as well as the project lead that will serve as primary contact (1 page maximum).
2. A justification and statement of need; description and graphics of the proposed survey area, including relevance to the strategic areas of focus noted in section III and degree of flexibility on timing of survey effort (4 pages maximum).
3. A project budget that lists the source(s) and amount(s) of funding that the partner would provide as its match to NOAA. The budget must confirm that partner funds can be transferred to NOAA before October 1, 2026 (1 page maximum).
Proposals must be sent in a PDF format, and use 12-point, Times New Roman font, single spacing, and 1-inch margins. Failure to adhere to these submission requirements will result in the proposal being returned without review and eliminated from further consideration.
To facilitate review, NOAA welcomes the submission of GIS files of project areas. These ancillary GIS files must be in SHP format.
Project proposals, including any optional GIS files of the proposed project areas, must be received via email at the email address listed in the
Once the Brennan Ocean Mapping Fund Program Management Team selects project proposals, NOAA will coordinate the development of agreements, funding transfers, project planning, environmental compliance, acquisition awards, and the quality assurance process with the project partners. NOAA may bring in additional partners and/or funding (Federal and/or non-Federal) to expand a project, if feasible. Approved projects will be reviewed by NOAA annually to ensure they are responsive to partner interests and NOAA mission requirements.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Notice of open meeting.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will convene a virtual listening session on Bolstering Data Center Growth, Resilience and Security. This session will build upon NTIA's previous request for comment (RFC) and serve as an important opportunity to “refresh the docket” with the latest market analysis, feedback, and data. Stakeholder input will be used to inform a forthcoming NTIA report outlining challenges and opportunities to data center growth, resilience and security, as well as a targeted, actionable menu of policy recommendations.
The listening session will be held on July 22, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
The session will be held virtually, with online slide share and dial-in information to be posted at
Please direct questions regarding this notice to Jorge Pardo, Senior Telecommunications Policy Specialist (
In September 2024, NTIA launched an inquiry into how the federal government may support the growth of data centers to meet the coming demand from artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. NTIA's RFC sought input on challenges and opportunities to bolster data center growth, resilience, and security. NTIA issued the RFC in coordination with the Department of Energy (DOE), given DOE's mission to ensure American's security and prosperity through addressing energy challenges with
The meeting is open to the public and the press on a first-come, first-served basis. The virtual meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations such as real-time captioning, sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids should notify the Department at
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 18, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Christopher Quarles, Policy Advisor, NTIA, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 4725, Washington, DC 20230, or via email at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Christopher Quarles, Policy Advisor, NTIA, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 4725, Washington, DC 20230, at (202) 941-0606 or
NTIA seeks approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to add 61 questions to the November 2025 edition of the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS). This collection of questions is known as the NTIA internet Use Survey and is also referred to as the CPS Computer and internet Use Supplement. NTIA has sponsored seventeen such surveys since 1994.
The internet is of immense importance to the nation's economic prosperity; as a result, policymakers, businesses, non-profits, communities, and other stakeholders rely on data about whether and how Americans use the internet to help shape their activities. Digitally connected Americans populate the modern workforce, drive creative innovation throughout the economy, and ensure a growing customer base to help sustain our nation's global competitiveness. Data from the NTIA internet Use Survey will inform policies aimed at broadband usage.
NTIA is working with Congress, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), other federal agencies, state and local governments, industry, and nonprofits to develop and promote policies that foster ubiquitous deployment and effective use of high-speed internet technologies. Collecting current, systematic, and comprehensive information on internet use and non-use by U.S. households is critical to enabling policymakers to gauge progress made to date and identify specific areas of concern that permit carefully targeted and cost-effective responses.
The U.S. Census Bureau is widely regarded as a premier data collector based on centuries of experience and rigorous scientific methods. Collection of NTIA's requested internet usage data will occur in conjunction with a future edition of the U.S. Census Bureau's CPS, thereby significantly reducing the potential burdens on the U.S. Census Bureau and on surveyed households.
The U.S. government has a need for comprehensive data in this area. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), NTIA, and the FCC have issued reports noting the importance of useful broadband data for policymakers. Moreover, Congress has passed legislation—including the Broadband Data Improvement Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Broadband DATA Act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—wholly or in part to facilitate data collection, research, and policy analysis in this area. Modifying the CPS to include NTIA's requested internet use questions will enable the Commerce Department and NTIA to respond to congressional concerns and directives.
NTIA has made a copy of the proposed information collection instrument available at
The NTIA Internet Use Survey will be administered by the U.S. Census Bureau as a supplement to the CPS. Data will be collected through personal visits and live telephone interviews using computer-assisted telephone interviewing and computer-assisted personal interviewing.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including via the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including any personal identifying information that you include—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 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. The USPTO invites comments on the information collection renewal of 0651-0051, which helps the USPTO assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden to the public. Public comments were previously requested via the
To ensure consideration, you must submit comments regarding this information collection on or before July 17, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website,
• This information collection request may be viewed at
•
•
The Madrid Protocol Implementation Act of 2002 amended the Trademark Act to provide that: (1) the owner of a U.S. application or registration may seek protection of its mark in any of the participating countries by submitting a single international application through the USPTO and (2) the holder of an international registration may request an extension of protection of the international registration to the United States. The Madrid Protocol came into effect in the United States on November 2, 2003, and is implemented under 15 U.S.C. 1141
Since the 60-day
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy, DoD.
Request for information.
This request for information provides an opportunity for the public to submit issues that have an impact on service members and their families where state governments are the primary agents for making positive change. Each year, DoD selects State Policy Priorities for states to consider that represent barriers resulting from the transience and uncertainty of military life. For example, DoD has asked states to consider remedies to improve school transitions for children in active duty military families to overcome problems with records transfer, class and course placement, qualifying for extra-curricular activities, and fulfilling graduation requirements. The DoD will consider the public submissions in setting those priorities.
Consideration will be given to all submissions received by July 17, 2025.
You may submit information in response to this request, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
Mr. Christopher R. Arnold, (571) 309-4712 (voice),
Current DoD State Policy Priorities may be found at the official Defense-State Liaison Office website:
Issues represent potential state priorities the public believes should be considered by the Department. The proposed solution should positively impact the quality of life of service members and their families, positively contribute to readiness, or both. Inputs must include the following information in order to be considered:
A. Issue title.
B. Description of the issue to include a problem statement, and who is impacted by this issue.
C. Description of a potential solution to this issue, including whether the issue can be improved through a change in state procedures, state regulations, or state statutes.
D. Description of the current status of the issue, and a description of the policies or practices enacted by one or more state governments, if known.
E. Your contact information so that we can follow up if we need any clarification.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications (NIA) for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the National Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center (NVRTAC).
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Roslyn Thomas, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 987-0105. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish a National Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center (NVRTAC).
The NVRTAC will provide intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance to State VR agencies that will enable VR agencies to improve VR program management and performance and, most importantly, to improve employment outcomes achieved by individuals with disabilities.
Regarding program management and performance, the NVRTAC's training and technical assistance will support the assessment, development, and enhancement of VR State agency leaders and staff knowledge, skills, and abilities to improve service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities and to perform the following functions:
(a) Implementing State VR agency-level best practices and policies for maximizing engagement and achieving Competitive Integrated Employment (CIE) for individuals with disabilities. The center will provide VR agency personnel with technical assistance on evaluating whether the management strategies they adopt have been shown to increase the percentage of participants who achieve an MSG/credential and exit the program with an employment outcome and modifying those strategies, if necessary, to achieve continuous program improvement. The NVRTAC will provide intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance to State VR agencies to improve or develop a broad range of management policies and practices, both programmatic and fiscal, to address needs common to many agencies;
(b) Disseminating clear, consistent messages on RSA priorities for the development and implementation of sound management and financial systems and strong internal controls;
(c) Identifying strengths and weaknesses in the agency's capacity to understand factors affecting program effectiveness and timeliness (such as the ability to analyze case service data to identify trends and disparities in employment outcomes achieved by various groups of individuals with disabilities) and designing management strategies to address these deficits;
(d) Analyzing the VR agency's human resource management for inclusion of best practice for recruitment, retention, and onboarding strategies including orientation training for new VR agency directors;
(e) Understanding statutory and regulatory requirements related to performance management, including calculations for the common performance measures required under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA);
(f) Monitoring and improving financial and program data reporting and accuracy;
(g) Conducting performance evaluation and quality assurance improvement activities, including the use of data for performance management systems and the implementation of the common performance measures required by WIOA;
(h) Conducting strategic planning and implementing the strategies to address aspects of a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) assessment that pose challenges and barriers to improving service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, including those with significant and the most significant disabilities, and students and youth with disabilities;
(i) Developing and implementing effective and efficient program and fiscal policies for delivering pre-employment transition services under section 113, VR services under section 103(a), and supported employment services under title VI of the Rehabilitation Act;
(j) Implementing proactive strategies for the State VR agency to collaborate and engage with educational agencies, Centers for Independent Living, American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, and community rehabilitation programs;
(k) Implementing strategies to maximize timely and meaningful engagement of VR clients during application and eligibility determination, career planning, development of the Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE), and service delivery;
(l) Accurately addressing the required descriptions in the VR services portion of the WIOA Unified or Combined State Plan, particularly in setting goals and strategies that can improve performance;
(m) Coordinating efforts with the State Rehabilitation Council;
(n) Developing relationships with public policymakers and optimizing the VR agency's presence and visibility by marketing the program in accordance with the requirements in the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance at 2 CFR 200.467 and RSA guidance;
(o) Understanding the key resource management elements, including but not limited to financial management, human resources management, and program management and their relevance to important VR program outcomes and various cost containment measures, such as implementing an order of selection giving priority for
(p) Resolving corrective action plans and strategies to increase compliance and reduce future noncompliance.
Regarding effective resource management, the NVRTAC will support the assessment, development, and enhancement of staff knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure that—
(a) Resources, including program funds and personnel, are being used for allowable purposes, are appropriately allocated, and support innovation in compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements;
(b) Internal controls and reporting systems upon which State VR agencies base fiscal and programmatic forecasting and decision-making are improved and reliable to support attainment of program goals and objectives; and
(c) Resources, including program funds and personnel, are fully used in ways that meet existing program needs, priorities, and expected employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
The following are TA project activities the NVRTAC will undertake to address weaknesses in resource management:
(a) Assess performance of grantees' financial management processes used to support attainment of fiscal and programmatic outcomes (for example, whether an agency's fiscal processes support the accurate tracking and reporting of non-Federal funds to maximize the drawdown of Federal award funds to support attainment of employment outcomes); and use the assessment to identify areas for improvement in fiscal processes that will assist the agency in meeting program goals.
(b) Assess personnel training and technical assistance needs to identify gaps in fiscal knowledge, skills, and abilities that prevent the agency from the effective and efficient use of resources necessary to achieve employment outcomes.
(c) Provide intensive training and technical assistance on financial planning, to maximize program resources and attainment of program goals and objectives, maximize opportunities for non-Federal sources of match, avoid potential maintenance of effort deficits and match penalties, and meet the reservation of funds requirement for pre-employment transition services.
(d) Provide technical assistance on implementing Federal, State, and program fiscal requirements, including internal controls, in an efficient and effective manner to reduce unnecessary burden and to focus efforts on program outcomes.
(e) Provide technical assistance on the identification, collection, and analysis of program and fiscal data necessary for program management and maximizing available resources to plan and support consumer services.
To meet the requirements of this priority, the NVRTAC must, at a minimum, conduct the following activities through innovative approaches:
(a) Establish an advisory committee for the NVRTAC. The committee members must include individuals with disabilities, representatives from State VR agencies, including business specialists, individuals with VR subject matter expertise, business representatives, community rehabilitation providers, individuals with subject matter expertise in assistive technology and advance technology for individuals with disabilities, and individuals with subject matter expertise in financial management and resources management for VR programs. The committee members will provide input and recommendations pertaining to the project design, project implementation, and the project evaluation. At a minimum, the committee should meet semi-annually.
(b) Establish a state-of-the-art NVRTAC website with information technology platform for communicating with State VR agencies and providing training and TA to state VR agencies' personnel. NVRTAC must ensure that all products produced by the NVRTAC and posted on the website have been developed in collaboration with RSA and meet government and industry-recognized standards for accessibility and security.
The website will serve as a key training and technical assistance delivery vehicle; peer-to-peer communication hub; stakeholder convening platform; and the central repository of information about technical assistance and training materials and resources developed and provided by the NVRTAC, including training modules for State VR agency leadership and VR counseling professionals, as well as for new employees onboarding resources. In addition, the system must have the capacity to track training completion or related records, as applicable.
(c) Conduct nationwide technical assistance and training needs assessment of State VR agencies' personnel during the first six months of the project. The needs assessment must include the areas of VR program management, financial and resource management, service delivery, and employment outcomes and should be informed by the following—
(1) Input from RSA staff, RSA monitoring reports, and State VR agency corrective action plans;
(2) Input from State VR agencies and workforce development partners, including community rehabilitation programs, about their needs, priorities, and innovative approaches to program and resource management that lead to improved service delivery;
(3) Information regarding the latest National trends, barriers, challenges, and opportunities; and
(4) Information regarding effective and efficient program and resource management strategies, techniques, and practices that may be applicable to State VR agencies.
(d) Develop a training and technical assistance plan. Based on the results of the needs assessment, develop an overarching training and technical assistance plan that must include, at a minimum—
(1) Management strategies and practices that result in improved service delivery and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, including the rationale for their selection;
(2) Conceptual framework for the selected strategies and practices, including key assumptions, expectations, and presumed relationships or linkages among strategies and practices;
(3) Nature and scope of the intensive training and technical assistance, targeted training and technical assistance, and universal training and technical assistance to be provided in support of the selected strategies and practices;
(4) Protocols and timelines for requesting, obtaining, and completing training and technical assistance; and
(5) Protocols and timelines for transitioning the State VR agency's technical assistance, upon completion of the technical assistance agreement, to the designated RSA State Liaison, when appropriate.
(e) Provide intensive training and technical assistance to State VR agencies consistent with the technical assistance
The intensive training and technical assistance agreements between the NVRTAC and the requesting State VR agencies must include the following components:
(1) Management strategies and practices to be implemented by the State VR agency that are designed to improve service delivery and maximize quality employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
(2) Nature and scope of the training and technical assistance to be provided by the NVRTAC. Topic areas addressed within the intensive training and technical assistance agreements may include the priority's broad management, performance, or resource management areas or the targeted and universal training and technical assistance topics in paragraph (g), below.
(3) Roles and responsibilities of the NVRTAC, State VR agency, RSA, and other workforce development partners, including the commitment of resources.
(4) Logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) that is specific to the intensive need being addressed and that includes performance outcomes, targets, and baselines; project activities, inputs, and outputs; and data collection and analysis commitments.
(f) Implement a plan for project evaluation, which includes a timeline for the evaluation and measurement benchmarks, that will evaluate the impact of the center's training and technical assistance on the performance of the VR agencies that received the center's services. As part of the evaluation plan, there must be a logic model that includes data elements, inputs, activities, outputs, and short-term and long-term performance indicators regarding—
(1) Quantitative outcomes resulting from the program management and employment strategies and practices, including—
(i) Timeliness of the VR processes and services;
(ii) Number of employment outcomes;
(iii) VR participants' employment or career-readiness;
(iv) Cost-effectiveness; and
(v) Sustainability;
(2) Quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's training and technical assistance activities;
(3) Quantitative or qualitative insights about the relationship between strategies, practices, and training and technical assistance activities on critical outcomes for VR personnel, VR clients, and key partners, including through—
(i) Pre- and post-training assessments;
(ii) Focus groups; and
(iii) Success stories.
(g) Develop and implement models and materials for targeted and universal training and technical assistance for VR agency personnel, on state VR program and fiscal management, and employment strategies for individuals with disabilities, which must include the following—
(1) Integration of assistive technology and artificial intelligence tools to fuel CIE in the 21st century for individuals with disabilities;
(2) Career pathways education, internships, apprenticeships, training, and supports in high-demand occupations, including those in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, advanced technology;
(3) Registered and industry-recognized apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, and on-the-job training;
(4) Supported employment and customized employment;
(5) Customized training and credential programs to meet employers' demand;
(6) Self-employment and entrepreneurship, including services available under the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program;
(7) Business engagement and employer supports including dual customer models such as Progressive Employment;
(8) Practices to enhance the employment capacity of individuals with the most significant disabilities receiving supported employment services, such as the Individual Placement and Support model;
(9) Pre-employment transition services that prepare students with disabilities and transition services that prepare youth with disabilities to identify career interests through work-based learning and early career exploration opportunities, including career pathways, internships, and job shadowing, with a focus on high-demand and STEM careers;
(10) Career counseling techniques and resources, including labor market information tools such as Career Index Plus;
(11) Collaboration with workforce development partners, community rehabilitation programs, and other community-based organizations to provide the comprehensive support services that individuals with significant and the most significant disabilities, and students and youth with disabilities, need to succeed, such as the Integrated Resource Teams model;
(12) Approaches that encourage VR clients to consider jobs in the advanced technology fields that respond to expected labor market needs;
(13) Approaches that encourage VR clients to enter and remain engaged in the VR process, such as rapid engagement, motivational interviewing, benefits counseling, and financial empowerment training, and vehicles such as the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) tax-free accounts for individuals with disabilities and flexibilities associated with Social Security Income; and
(14) Community outreach strategies to expand the pool of potential VR applicants and referral sources.
Applicants must—
(a) Provide a landscape analysis of current challenges, opportunities, and initiatives in national VR technical assistance and training. The landscape analysis must address the following:
(1) Knowledge about—
(i) State VR program challenges in performance, including barriers and trends regarding program and resource management and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities especially those with significant and the most significant disabilities, and students and youth with disabilities, particularly as noted in recent RSA monitoring reports and State VR agency corrective action plans; and
(ii) Federal and State initiatives and best practices to improve program and resource management and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, particularly in response to requirements under WIOA.
(2) The proposed project's potential to contribute to these Federal and State initiatives by assisting State VR agencies in equipping personnel with the necessary skills and training to implement the substantive provisions of
(b) Provide an implementation plan. The implementation plan must describe the feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks and meeting expected outcomes.
(c) Describe the plans to establish a state-of-the-art NVRTAC website and information technology platform.
(d) Describe plans for completing the national technical assistance and training needs assessment.
(e) Specify strategies to maximize coordination between the NVRTAC and other TA centers and seek opportunities to coordinate with other training and technical assistance investments, including those funded by the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, in the provision of training and technical assistance to State VR agencies.
(f) Describe the proposed evaluation plan and logic model for the project.
(g) Provide a dissemination plan. The dissemination plan must describe plans to disseminate its summative findings and results at national conferences, regional forums, or specialized meetings starting after the first year of the performance period, including cost-effective approaches such as virtual convenings, to engage State VR agencies and other potential Federal, State, local, and nongovernment partners, including—
(1) Types of events (
(2) Target audience (
(3) Convening modes (in-person, virtual).
(a) Significance. (10 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The potential contribution of the proposed project to improve the provision of rehabilitative services, increase the number or quality of rehabilitation counselors, or develop and implement effective strategies for providing vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it is designed to build capacity and yield sustainable results that will extend beyond the project period.
(b) Quality of the project design. (40 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project demonstrates meaningful community engagement and input to ensure that the project is appropriate to successfully address the needs of the target population or other identified needs and will be used to inform continuous improvement strategies.
(iii) The extent to which the resources, tools, and implementation lessons of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways to the target population and local community that will enable them and others (including practitioners, researchers, education leaders, and partners) to implement similar strategies.
(iv) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.
(c) Adequacy of resources. (10 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(d) Quality of the management plan. (30 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The extent to which the project director or principal investigator, when hired, has the qualifications required for the project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project and experience in designing, managing, or implementing similar projects for the target population to be served by the project.
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(e) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building. (10 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide guidance for quality assurance and continuous improvement.
(a) Number and percentage of participating State VR agencies reporting improved coordination and collaboration with Federal, State, or local organizations as a result of the training and technical assistance.
(b) Number and percentage of VR agency personnel reporting that the training and technical assistance is high in quality, relevant, and useful to their work.
(c) Of State VR agencies that received training and technical assistance, the percentage change in consumers
(d) Of State VR agencies that received training and technical assistance, the number and percentage of agencies that achieved their negotiated level of performance for the measurable skill gains indicator in the VR Program Year.
(e) The number and percentage of participating State VR agencies that adopt quality management and quality employment strategies and practices as a result of training and technical assistance provided under this grant.
For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following definitions apply. The definitions for “intensive training and technical assistance,” “targeted training and technical assistance,” and “universal training and technical assistance” are from the NFP.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act.
In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information.
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the
6.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department.
7.
8.
If the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to SAM semiannually. Please review these requirements if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project's period of performance, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit semiannual and annual performance reports that provide the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports. For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application; and whether the continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications (NIA) for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training (RLTT) program.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Diandrea Bailey, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-6244. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
The actual number of awards will be determined by the quality of applications submitted under each topic area. The Secretary intends to fund at least one award in each priority or topic area. Thus, the Secretary may fund applications out of rank order.
We will not make awards exceeding the maximum award amounts in any given budget period.
Projects that propose a CSPD project that provides training to currently employed State VR agency personnel, including VR counselors with disabilities. Within CSPD training, applicants may identify an area of concentration consistent with this priority, such as vocational evaluation and career assessment or others.
The academic training for all participants must meet the designated State unit (DSU) personnel standards required under section 101(a)(7) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and 34 CFR 361.18. The training must also meet the qualifications for the master's degree or academic certificate specified in the State's CSPD plans or of the States with which the State VR counselors and other personnel are working.
CSPD proposed projects must develop and use innovative approaches to train VR professionals, including using cutting-edge technology or innovative applications of advanced technology (
Projects that provide academic training to RSA scholars where the training leads to a degree (undergraduate or master's level) or academic certificate in one of six rehabilitation topic areas that follow. Within these topic areas, applicants may identify an area of concentration consistent with this priority, such as vocational evaluation and career assessment or others.
1.
2.
The rehabilitation technology training program must be designed to ensure that RSA scholars acquire a 21st-century understanding of the evolving technology labor force, the needs of individuals with disabilities that might be addressed via technology, and the ways technology can unlock individuals' strengths.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Projects must provide assistance to scholars to secure or maintain employment with State VR agencies, where the job duties include provision of rehabilitation of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing (
The academic training for all participants must meet the DSU personnel standards required under section 101(a)(7) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and 34 CFR 361.18.
Rehabilitation topic area projects under this priority must develop and use innovative approaches to train RSA scholars, including using cutting-edge technology or innovative application of advanced technology (
In addition to academic training, RSA funded projects may provide a one-time stipend, to an amount as specified in the Notice Inviting Applications published in the
(a) completing an internship (
(b) obtaining qualifying employment in the specific field of study within a period of time after graduating and maintaining qualifying employment a minimum period of time beyond the required service obligation period as specified in the NIA; and
(c) utilizing a vetted employment expert or consultant to assist the RSA scholar in securing employment within a period of time after graduating with a State VR or related agency in the field of study as specified in the NIA.
This priority is:
Projects that use at least 85 percent of the total cost of a project under this program for scholarships as defined in 34 CFR 386.4.
(a) Provide data on the current and projected employment needs and personnel shortages in State VR agencies and other related agencies (as defined in 34 CFR 386.4) in their local area, region, and State; and describe how the proposed project will address those employment needs and personnel shortages;
(b) Describe how the project will train RSA scholars, as applicable, including how the project will provide them with an understanding of the evolving labor force and the needs of individuals with disabilities to ensure that the RSA scholars have a 21st century understanding of the evolving labor force and the needs of individuals with disabilities. Applicants must describe how, upon completion of the training program, State VR personnel including VR counselors or RSA scholars will be prepared to assist individuals with disabilities to meet current demands and emerging trends in the labor market, including how—
(1) The program provides a breadth of knowledge, experience, and rigor that will adequately prepare scholars to meet the employment needs and goals of VR consumers and aligns with evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices and with competency-based skills (
(2) The program prepares RSA scholars to meet all applicable certification standards;
(3) The program addresses new or emerging consumer employment needs or trends at the national, State, and regional levels;
(4) The program trains RSA scholars to possess the skills needed to address the specialized needs of individuals with specific types of disability conditions, which may include, but are not limited to, physical disabilities, mental health disorders or illnesses, intellectual and developmental disabilities, blindness, and deafness;
(5) The program trains RSA scholars to understand the applications and strategies related to the integration of advanced assistive technology and artificial intelligence tools into VR services to fuel competitive integrated employment in the 21st century for individuals with disabilities and recognize the assistive technology needs of consumers and employers who hire individuals with disabilities throughout the rehabilitation process so that they will be better able to coordinate the provision of appropriate advanced assistive technology services and devices including artificial intelligence in order to assist the consumers to obtain and retain competitive integrated employment;
(6) The program teaches RSA scholars to work effectively with employers, including by teaching strategies for developing relationships with employers in their State and local areas, identifying employer needs and skill demands, making initial employer contacts, presenting job-ready clients to potential employers, and conducting follow-up with employers;
(7) The program teaches RSA scholars to work effectively with state education agencies (SEAs), and local educational agencies (LEAs), particularly special education systems and educators. This includes instruction on collaborating effectively with SEAs, LEAs, school administrators, and special education teachers to ensure their awareness of pre-employment transition services and vocational rehabilitation transition services, and ensuring the successful planning and provision of these services; and
(8) The latest technology is incorporated into the methods of instruction (
(c) Describe their methods to—
(1) Recruit highly capable prospective State VR counselors or RSA scholars who have the potential to successfully complete the academic program, all required practicum and internship experiences, and the required service obligation;
(2) Educate potential RSA scholars about the terms and conditions of the service obligation under 34 CFR 386.4, 386.34, and 386.40 through 386.43 so that they will be fully informed before accepting a scholarship and aware of the consequences should they fail to complete the program;
(3) Maintain a system that ensures that RSA scholars sign a payback agreement when they start and an exit certification form when they exit the program, regardless of whether they drop out, are removed, or successfully complete the program;
(4) Provide academic support and counseling to RSA scholars throughout the course of the academic program to ensure successful completion;
(5) Ensure that all RSA scholars complete an internship in a State VR agency (as defined in 34 CFR 386.4) as a requirement for program completion, unless the Secretary determines upon grantee request that there is sufficient justification for not completing an internship;
(6) Provide career counseling, including informing RSA scholars of professional contacts and networks, job leads, including those available through the RSA Payback Information Management System (PIMS), and other necessary resources and information to support RSA scholars in successfully obtaining and retaining qualifying employment;
(7) Maintain bi-monthly contact with RSA scholars upon successful academic training program completion and provide post-graduation support to assist RSA scholars to achieve qualifying employment as well as employment support, at a minimum, for the RSA scholars' initial three to six months of employment;
(8) Maintain quarterly communication with RSA scholars after program exit until the beginning of their service obligation date to ensure that scholar contact information in PIMS is up to date;
(9) Maintain and safeguard credentials to access PIMS for the timely review and approval of scholar employment; and
(10) Maintain accurate financial information on, while safeguarding the privacy of, current and former scholars from the time they are enrolled in the program until they successfully meet their service obligation;
(d) Describe a plan for developing and maintaining partnerships with State VR
(1) Coordination between the grantee and the State VR agencies and community-based rehabilitation service providers that will promote qualifying employment opportunities for RSA scholars and formalized on-boarding and induction experiences for new hires;
(2) Formal opportunities for RSA scholars to obtain work experiences through internships, practicum agreements, job shadowing, and mentoring opportunities;
(3) Formal opportunities for RSA scholars to obtain work experiences in LEAs to develop practical knowledge on effective special education teacher-VR counselor collaborations that foster increased awareness in LEAs of pre-employment transition services and vocational rehabilitation transition services, and the successful planning and provision of these services; and
(4) A scholar internship assessment tool that is developed to ensure a consistent approach to the evaluation of scholars in a particular program. Applicants must describe how—
(i) The tool will reflect the specific responsibilities of the scholar during the internship;
(ii) Grantees and worksite supervisors will work together to develop the assessment tool. Supervisors at the internship site will complete the assessment detailing the scholar's strengths and areas for improvement that must be addressed and provide the results of the assessment to the grantee; and
(iii) The grantee will ensure that (A) RSA scholars are provided with a copy of the assessment and all relevant rubrics prior to beginning their internship, (B) supervisors have sufficient technical support to accurately complete the assessment, and (C) scholars receive a copy of the results of the assessment within 90 days of the end of their internship;
(e) Describe how RSA scholars will be evaluated throughout the program to ensure that they are proficient in meeting the needs and demands of consumers and employers, including the steps that will be taken to provide assistance to an RSA scholar who is not meeting academic standards or who is performing poorly in a practicum or internship setting;
(f) Describe how the program will be evaluated, including how—
(1) The program will determine its effectiveness over time in filling vacancies in the State VR agency with qualified counselors or rehabilitation professionals capable of providing quality services to consumers;
(2) Input from State VR agencies and community-based rehabilitation service providers will be included in the evaluation;
(3) Feedback from consumers of VR services and employers (including the assessments described in paragraph (d)(4)) will be included in the evaluation;
(4) Data on the State VR program from other sources, such as the Department, will be included in the evaluation; and
(5) The data and results from the evaluation will be used to make necessary adjustments and improvements to the program.
(a)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the proposed project appropriately relates to the mission of the State-Federal vocational rehabilitation service program.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the project can be expected either—
(i) To increase the supply of trained personnel available to State and other public or nonprofit agencies involved in the rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities through degree or certificate granting programs; or
(ii) To improve the skills and quality of professional personnel in the rehabilitation field in which the training is to be provided through the granting of a degree or certificate.
(b)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that demonstrates the adequacy of the proposed curriculum.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The curriculum and teaching methods provide for an integration of theory and practice relevant to the educational objectives of the program.
(ii) For programs whose curricula require them, there is evidence of educationally focused practical and other field experiences in settings that ensure student involvement in the provision of vocational rehabilitation, supported employment, customized employment, pre-employment transition services, transition services, or independent living rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with significant disabilities.
(iii) If applicable, there is evidence of current professional accreditation by the designated accrediting agency in the professional field in which grant support is being requested.
(c)
(1) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to enable successful achievement of project objectives.
(iii) The extent to which there is a plan to incorporate the project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the project period.
(iv) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.
(d)
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.
(ii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served, the depth and intensity of services, and the anticipated results and benefits.
(iii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(e)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The extent to which the project director or principal investigator, when hired, has the qualifications required for the project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project and experience in designing, managing, or implementing similar projects for the target population to be served by the project.
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(iv) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(f)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide guidance for quality assurance and continuous improvement.
In addition to the selection criteria listed above, the Secretary considers these factors from 34 CFR 385.33—
(a) The geographical distribution of projects in each Rehabilitation Training program category throughout the country; and
(b) The past performance of the applicant in carrying out similar training activities under previously awarded grants, as indicated by such factors as compliance with grant conditions, soundness of programmatic and financial management practices, and attainment of established project objectives.
These criteria are outside of the non-Federal peer review process. The criterion related to geographical distribution of projects will be applied to fund applications out of rank order if the top-ranked applications do not represent a geographical distribution throughout the country. The criterion related to past performance will be applied to all applications that are recommended for funding.
For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of performance measures that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the RLTT program. These measures are:
Grant applications must include the performance targets for each reporting period and by the end of the grant period of performance.
Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with 2 CFR part 200.
1.
2.
3.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
6.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department.
8.
If the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to SAM semiannually. Please review these requirements if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project's period of performance, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit semiannual and annual performance reports that provide the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports. For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department.
Election Assistance Commission.
Notice, request for comment.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the EAC announces an information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. The EAC intends to submit this proposed information collection (U.S. Elections Survey—Election Office Staffing) to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for approval. The U.S. Elections Survey (USES)—Election Office Staffing asks election offices to gather information on their staffing and operational structure. The survey includes questions regarding staff composition, hiring capabilities, and perceived staffing needs.
Comments must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern on Friday, August 19, 2025.
Comments on the proposed information collection should be submitted electronically via
Raymond Williams at 202-924-0794, or email
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
• The accuracy of the agency'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.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your submitted comments, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
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 (FE)) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice (Notice) of receipt of a request (Request), filed on May 29, 2025, by Louisiana LNG Infrastructure LLC (Louisiana LNG). Louisiana LNG 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. 4373 (as amended)—specifically, to extend the current export commencement deadline in its order. Louisiana LNG filed the Request under the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
Protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention, as applicable, and written comments are to be filed electronically as detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, July 17, 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 May 2, 2019, in DOE/FE Order No. 4373 (as amended),
As relevant here, Order No. 4373 requires Louisiana LNG to “commence export operations using the planned liquefaction facility no later than seven years from the date of issuance of this Order”—
In support of this Request, Louisiana LNG states that, in 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted Louisiana LNG's request for a three-year extension to complete construction and place the Project in-service.
Additional details can be found in the Request, posted on the DOE website at
In reviewing the 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 Louisiana LNG'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. 16-144-LNG” or “Louisiana LNG Infrastructure LLC Request for Extension” 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.
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.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n.
The dam creates an impoundment that has a surface area of 290 acres at the spillway crest elevation of 258.0 feet msl. From the impoundment, water flows through the intake structure to Units 1 to 4, which discharge to a tailrace. From the impoundment, water also flows through Unit 5, which discharges immediately downstream of the dam. The project creates an approximately 750-foot-long bypassed reach.
Electricity generated at the powerhouse is transmitted to the electric grid via 4.16-kilovolt (kV) generator lead lines, a 4.16/13.2-kV step-up transformer, and a 75-foot-long, 13.2-kV transmission line.
Project recreation facilities include a trailer boat access site and parking area on the east shore of the impoundment approximately 750-feet-upstream of the dam.
The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities of the powerhouse are 183 and 3,650 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The average annual energy production of the project from 2015 through 2023 was 8,629 megawatt-hours.
The current license requires Ampersand to operate the project in run-of-river mode, such that project outflow approximates inflow to the impoundment. The current license requires Ampersand to maintain the impoundment at or above the spillway crest elevation of 258.0 feet msl.
When inflow is less than 183 cfs, the current license requires Ampersand to release all inflow over the spillway. When inflow is between 183 and 632 cfs, the current license requires Ampersand to release all inflow through Unit 5, and if Unit 5 is not operational, release all inflow over the spillway or through the sluice gates of the non-overflow section of the dam. When inflow exceeds 632 cfs, the current license requires Ampersand to release a minimum flow of 450 cfs through Unit 5 and release the remaining flow through any combination of Units 1 to 5, and if Unit 5 is not operational, release 450 cfs over the spillway or sluice gates, and the remaining flow through any combination of Units 1 to 4. In practice, when inflow is between 183 and 730 cfs, Ampersand releases all inflow through Unit 5, and if Unit 5 is not operational, releases all inflow over the spillway.
Ampersand proposes to: (1) continue operating the project in a run-of-river mode; (2) discharge between 183 cfs and 730 cfs through Unit 5, or discharge 730 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, over the spillway when Unit 5 is not operating; (3) implement an Invasive Species Management Plan that was filed with the application; and (4) consult with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer before beginning any land-clearing or land-disturbing activities.
o. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
You may also register online at
p. 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
q.
r. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On October 24, 2024, and supplemented on May 9, 2025, and May 13, 2025, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (licensee) filed an application for a temporary variance from its minimum instream flow requirements under California State Water Resources Control Board (California SWRCB)'s section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) condition 1 and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) 4(e) condition 23 Part 1 for the Poe Project No. 2107. The project is located on the North Fork Feather River in Butte County, California. The project occupies federal land within the Plumas National Forest, managed by the Forest Service.
The licensee proposes to reduce flows released from Poe Dam so that instream flows of the North Fork Feather River bypassed reach are 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) from June 1, 2025 through November 15, 2025. The licensee states that this reduction is necessary to facilitate recoating the radial bypass gates and replacing the seals, the gate hoist, and its controls. The radial gate apparatus that normally releases regulated flows into the Poe bypassed reach will be out of service during the repair. The variance would affect approximately 8 miles of the North Fork Feather River, also known as the Poe bypassed reach, until it joins Lake Oroville downstream.
The Commission issued a notice of application for filing, soliciting comments, motions to intervene, and protests for this variance request on May 12, 2025. The public comment period closed on June 11, 2025.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
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, Tribal members, and others to access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Katie Schmidt at (415) 369-3348 or
Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments
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.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
The dam creates an impoundment that has a surface area of approximately 85 acres at the South Dam's spillway crest elevation of 281.5 feet msl. The impoundment includes a forebay upstream of the South Dam with a 60-foot-long headgate structure.
From the impoundment, water flows through the headgate structure to the forebay. From the forebay, water flows through the canal intake structure to a 3,750-foot-long power canal that provides water to an intake structure that includes two gates with trashracks. From the intake structure, water is conveyed to two 240-foot-long penstocks that provide water to a 57-foot-long, 56-foot-wide powerhouse that contains two 4.5-megawatt (MW) horizontal Kaplan turbine-generator units (Units 1 and 2), for a total installed capacity of 9 MW. Water is discharged from the powerhouse to a tailrace. The project creates an approximately 4,700-foot-long bypassed reach.
From the forebay, water is also conveyed through the turbine intake gate in the South Dam to a conduit that provides water to a 0.3-MW vertical Kaplan turbine-generator unit (Unit 3) that is located on a concrete deck. Unit 3 discharges to the bypassed reach downstream of the South Dam spillway.
Electricity generated at the powerhouse is transmitted to the electric grid via a 1,400-foot-long, 46-kilovolt transmission line.
The upstream fish passage facility consists of a 6.5-foot-wide, 273-foot-long Denil fish ladder with 3 tiered sections. The downstream fish passage facility consists of a 4-foot-wide, 6-foot-long fish collection box, and a 2-foot-dimeter, 200-foot-long pipe that discharges to the bypassed reach downstream of the South Dam spillway.
Project recreation facilities include: (1) a 5-car parking area on the earth embankment; (2) an upper scenic viewing area approximately 1,350 feet downstream of the dam on the southern bank of bypassed reach; (3) an upper picnic area approximately 1,500 feet downstream of the dam on the southern bank of bypass reach; (4) a shoreline fishing access area approximately 500 feet upstream of the powerhouse on the southern bank of bypassed reach; (5) a lower picnic and scenic viewing area approximately 520 feet upstream of the powerhouse on the southern bank of bypassed reach, (6) a 10-car parking area approximately 170 feet upstream of the intake structure on the southern bank of the power canal; (7) an approximately 1-mile-long main recreation trail that extends the length of the project from the dam to the powerhouse and provides access to the shoreline fishing access area and the lower picnic and scenic viewing area; and (8) an approximately 1,320-foot-long secondary trail that branches from the primary trail and provides access to the upper picnic and scenic viewing areas.
The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities of the powerhouse are 225 and 1,900 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities of Unit 3 are 60 and 140 cfs, respectively. The average annual energy production of the project from 2010 through 2019, was 27,739 megawatt-hours.
The current license requires the project to operate in a run-of-river mode such that project outflow approximates inflow to the impoundment. The current license requires Hydro Partners to maintain the impoundment at or near the South Dam spillway crest elevation of 281.5 feet msl. Hydro Partners maintains the impoundment at or above the South Dam spillway crest elevation.
The current license also requires Hydro Partners to release the following minimum flows or inflow, whichever is less, to the bypassed reach: (1) 175 cfs from September 16 through November 15; (2) 125 cfs from November 16 through April 15; (3) 150 cfs from April 16 through June 15; and (4) 100 cfs from June 16 through September 15. The current license requires Hydro Partners to operate the downstream fish passage facility for migrating salmonids by releasing 48 cfs from April 16 through June 15 and from September 16 through November 15, and releasing 36 cfs at all other times. In addition, the current license requires Hydro Partners to implement a Recreation Plan and Streamflow Gaging Plan to monitor the required minimum flows released to the bypassed reach.
Hydro Partners proposes to remove approximately 39.2 acres downstream of the project tailrace from the current project boundary. Hydro Partners proposes to continue operating the project as currently licensed, including run-of-river operation, impoundment levels, minimum bypassed reach flows, fishway flows, and maintaining existing
n. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
You may also register online at
o. 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
p.
q. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
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.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit three information collection requests (ICRs), listed below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed ICRs as described below. These are proposed extensions of currently approved ICRs. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Likewise, no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 18, 2025.
Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, online using
The EPA's policy is that all relevant comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Mr. Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Programs Division, (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)-541-
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0052; NSPS for Incinerators (40 CFR part 60, subpart E) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1058.16; OMB Control Number 2060-0040; Expiration date September 30, 2025.
(2) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0060; NSPS for Stationary Gas Turbines (40 CFR part 60, subpart GG) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1071.17; OMB Control Number 2060-0028; Expiration date September 30, 2025.
(3) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0037; NSPS for Stationary Combustion Turbines (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2177.10; OMB Control Number 2060-0582; Expiration date October 31, 2025.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice: public hearing.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a virtual public hearing to be held on July 8, 2025, on its proposal for the “Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2026 and 2027, Partial Waiver of 2025 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement, and Other Changes,” which was announced on June 13, 2025. An additional session will be held on July 9, 2025, if necessary, to accommodate the number of testifiers that sign-up to testify.
EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on July 8, 2025. An additional session will be held on July 9, 2025, if necessary, to accommodate the number of testifiers that sign-up to testify. Please refer to the
The virtual public hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) each day and end when all parties who wish to speak have had an opportunity to do so, but no later than 5 p.m. ET. All hearing attendees (including even those who do not intend to provide testimony) should register for the virtual public hearing by July 1, 2025. Information on how to register can be found at
Nick Parsons, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection
EPA is proposing to establish the 2026 and 2027 applicable volumes and corresponding percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. EPA is also proposing to partially waive the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and revise the associated percentage standard due to a shortfall in cellulosic biofuel production. Finally, EPA is proposing several regulatory changes to the RFS program, including reducing the number of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) generated for imported renewable fuel and renewable fuel produced from foreign feedstocks and removing renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program (eRINs). The “RFS Program: Standards for 2026 and 2027, Partial Waiver of 2025 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement, and Other Changes” proposal was announced on June 13, 2025, and will be published separately in the
Information on how to register for the virtual public hearing can be found at
Each commenter will have 3 minutes to provide oral testimony. EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
If you require the services of a translator or special accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by July 1, 2025. EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505. EPA has also developed a website for the RFS program, including the proposal, which is available at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document announces that certain information submitted to the Office of Pesticide Program in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information that may have been claimed as confidential business information (CBI) by the submitter, will be transferred to Agile Decision Science, LLC, Savan Group LLC and Maines in accordance with the CBI regulations. These entities have been awarded multiple contracts to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable these entities to fulfill the obligations of the contract.
Access to the information will occur no sooner than June 23, 2025 and is expected to continue in accordance with the terms of the contract as discussed in this document.
William Northern, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-1493 email address:
This action applies to the public in general. This action may, however, be of particular interest to those who submit certain information or data to EPA under FIFRA and FFDCA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that the EPA contracts identified in Unit II. require that the contractors identified in Unit II. have access to certain information submitted to EPA under FIFRA and FFDCA, including information that may have been claimed as CBI by the submitter. To perform successfully the duties specified under the contracts, personnel of the contractors will be given access to information, including information claimed or determined to be CBI information submitted to EPA.
EPA is issuing this document to inform all submitters of information to EPA under FIFRA and FFDCA that EPA will provide the identified contractors with access to the CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. The information is contained in documents that have been submitted to EPA, including information that has been claimed to be, or determined to potentially contain, CBI. The information may also include scientific studies subject to the disclosure restrictions of FIFRA section 10(g), 7 U.S.C. 136h(d).
All documents that may be subject to release restrictions under federal law will be designated as “Protected Information” in the list of record materials provided to the contractors. The contracts preclude public disclosure of any such documents by the contractors who have received the information from EPA. At the conclusion of the contracts, the contractors are required to destroy or return the CBI materials to EPA.
Under these contract numbers identified in this unit, the contractor will perform the following:
1. Contract No. 68HERD23D0003. In this arrangement, the EPA Office of Mission Support (OMS) serves as the lead partner by assuming primary responsibility for coordination of the partnership, as well as management and administration of the EPA Docket Center Services Task Order (TO). Accordingly, the OMS representative serves as the Task Order Contracting Officer's Representative (TOCOR) for the overall TO.
2. Contract No. 68HERC23A0004. The accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) 2/15/2025-12/31/2025) Product/Service Code: R617.Project Management Support. The contractor's Technical Project Manager or their designee shall develop and manage a project schedule for the tasks outlined in the contract, conduct a project kick-off meeting and associated activities, and provide formal status updates throughout the project's life.
3. Contract No. 47QFCA22F0018. Application Services provide support for all applications and collaborative service capabilities. These services include support for developing and implementing enterprise and departmental-level applications. These applications may be “cross-cutting” in nature, with inter-related service processing components extending across/beyond the enterprise, or unique to a particular agency/department's mission requirements.
These contracts involve no subcontractors.
OPP has determined that the contracts described in this document involve work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent regulatory decisions under FIFRA. Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408.
In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the contracts prohibit use of the information for any purpose not specified in these contracts; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the
In addition, the contractors are required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to the contractors until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided to the contractors will be maintained by the EPA Project Officers for these contracts. All information supplied to the contractors by EPA for use in connection with these contracts will be returned to EPA when the contractors have completed the work.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by July 17, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE), individuals residing in congregate settings, such as ICFs-IID and Long-Term Care (LTC) facilities were at greater risk of acquiring COVID-19 infections and once infected, were at greater risk of severe illness or death. As a result, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) revised the Conditions of Participation (CoPs) for many of CMS' certified providers including hospitals and institutional care settings in order to reduce the risk of exposure to and the severity from contracting the COVID-19 virus for medical and non-medical staff and patients. In addition to the CoPs, health care facilities were obligated to establish an infection control program that would protect the health and safety of residents, personnel, and the general public under Sections 1819(d)(3)(B) and 1919(d)(3) of the Act.
Individuals housed at ICFs-IID facilities are mentally and intellectually impaired, receive Medicaid assistance, and live in congregate settings. ICF-IID clients may also have other underlying medical conditions such as visual or hearing impairments, or seizure disorder. Based on their living situation and underlying health conditions, these clients were at higher risk of exposure and severe consequences from COVID-19 and continue to be at higher risk due to new variants of COVID-19 and other similar acute respiratory illnesses.
In the interim final rule, entitled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements for Long-Term Care (LTC) Facilities and Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICFs-IID) Residents, Clients, and Staff,” 86 FR 26306 (CMS-3414-IFC), that was published on May 13, 2021(hereinafter “May 2021 Interim Final Rule”), CMS added new CoPs which required ICF/IIDs facilities to: (1) develop policies and procedures to educate clients, their representatives, and staff on the benefits and risks, and potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine; (2) educate and offer the COVID-19 vaccine per the policy and procedures developed; (3) document that staff and clients were educated and offered the vaccine; and (4) document whether or not a client or staff member received the vaccine and if not, if it was due to medical contraindications or refusal. The May 2021 Interim Final rule included an estimate for the burden hours and costs to industry associated with these specific information collection requests and which was subsequently submitted to OMB as the initial PRA package for this information collection request in 2021.
In November 2021, CMS issued “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination,” 86 FR 61555 (CMS-3415-IFC)(hereinafter “November 2021 Interim Final Rule”), which mandated health care staff in all CMS certified facilities, including ICFs-IID, to be vaccinated. Most significantly, health care staff were no longer permitted to refuse being vaccinated and had to request an exemption if they did not want to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. As a result, ICFs-IID had to document that their staff were educated and offered the vaccine, and also document whether their staff received a vaccination or were approved for an exemption. Clients of ICFs-IID, however, were still allowed to refuse taking the vaccine which would be documented in their medical record.
On June 5, 2023, CMS issued a final rule, “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Policy and Regulatory Changes to the Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Requirements; Additional Policy and Regulatory Changes to the Requirements for Long-Term Care (LTC) Facilities and Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities (ICFs-IID) To Provide COVID-19 Vaccine Education and Offer Vaccinations to Residents, Clients, and Staff; Policy and Regulatory Changes to the Long Term Care Facility COVID-19 Testing,” 88 FR 36485 (CMS-3415-F, 3414-F, and 3401-F)(hereinafter “June 2023 Final Rule”), which eliminated the vaccine mandate on health care staff and finalized the CoPs related to the “educate and offer” activity for COVID-19 vaccines in LTCs and ICF-IID. Currently, ICFs-IID must continue to educate on the risks and benefits of the COVID vaccine and offer the vaccine to clients and staff and must continue to document this activity for clients in their medical records. However, when the June 2023 Final Rule removed the staff vaccine mandate by eliminating the CoPs at 483.430(f) in its entirety, documentation of the educate and offer activity for staff was also eliminated. Thus, ICFs-IID must continue to “educate and offer” the COVID-19 vaccine to both staff and clients, but the current CoPs require facilities to document this task only for their clients. Although the COVID-19 PHE ended in May 2023, the COVID-19 related CoPs for ICF-IID as updated in the June 2023 Final Rule remain in effect post-PHE in order to protect clients and staff from the same risks as before that may be due to new COVID-19 variants.
This reinstatement estimates the new burden hours for ICFs-IID based on the revised CoPs. The burden of the information collections for LTC facilities is included in OMB Control Number 0938-1363.
3.
CMS uses information from the data collection activities to determine the extent to which the goals of each training and support session were achieved and to help CMS make improvements for future training and support sessions. The collected data helps CMS address its Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requirements, as well as CMS and HHS goals for support for, and open dialogue with, stakeholders.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted to assist millions of Americans in obtaining affordable health care services and to allow more employers to offer insurance coverage to their employees in a cost-effective manner. Since the implementation of ACA in 2014, individuals and small businesses have been able to purchase private health insurance through competitive marketplaces called the “Health Insurance Marketplace” (Marketplace). CMS issued regulations for the establishment and practices of Marketplaces in States. The cooperation and coordination of States, health insurance issuers, the Federal Government and other key stakeholders is essential to the continued success of the Marketplace.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) of 2021 became law on December 27, 2020. It is a $1.4 trillion omnibus spending agreement that encompasses many different provisions. Two (2) acts within the law apply to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO): Title I, “No Surprises Act” and Title II, “Transparency” (NST). Beginning in 2022, new protections through the No Surprises Act are in place to shield millions of consumers from surprise medical bills.
CMS is strongly committed to providing training, outreach, and technical assistance to stakeholders participating in the Marketplace and/or programs mandated by the ACA or NST. In addition, CMS recognizes that the success of Marketplaces and associated programs relies on the cooperation and coordination of States, issuers, Assisters, self-insured health plans, third-party administrators (TPA) of self-insured health plans, agents and brokers, Providers/Facilities, and other stakeholders. Therefore, CMS expects to design and conduct various consumer satisfaction and feedback surveys, usability tests, and focus groups for these respondents to complete.
Office of Child Support Services, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), is providing notice of a re-established matching program between HHS/ACF/OCSS and state workforce agencies (SWA) administering the Unemployment Compensation benefits program (UC). The matching program compares SWA records with new hire and quarterly wage information maintained in the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), the outcomes of which help SWAs administer their UC programs.
The deadline for comments on this notice is July 17, 2025. The re-established matching program will commence no sooner than 30 days after publication of this notice, provided no comments are received that warrant a change to this notice. The matching program will be conducted for an initial term of 18 months (from approximately July 19, 2025, through January 18, 2027) and, within 3 months of expiration, may be renewed for one additional year if the parties make no change to the matching program and certify that the program has been conducted in compliance with the agreement.
Interested parties may submit written comments on this notice to Venkata Kondapolu, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Child Support Services, Administration for Children and Families, by email at
General questions about the matching program may be submitted to Venkata Kondapolu, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Child Support Services, Administration for Children and Families, by email at
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) provides certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving federal benefits. Accordingly, the law governs federal agency computer matching programs when records in a system of records containing information about individuals, that is retrieved by name or other personal identifier, are matched with other federal, state, or local government agency records. The Privacy Act requires agencies involved in a matching program to:
1. Obtain approval of a Computer Matching Agreement, prepared in accordance with the Privacy Act, by the
2. Enter into a written Computer Matching Agreement.
3. Provide a report of the matching program to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and make it available to the public, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o), (u)(3)(A), and (u)(4).
4. Publish a notice of the matching program in the
5. Notify the individuals whose information will be used in the matching program that the information they provide is subject to verification through matching, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(1)(D).
6. Verify match findings before suspending, terminating, reducing, or making a final denial of an individual's benefits or payments or taking other adverse action against the individual, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(p).
This matching program complies with these requirements.
The agencies participating in the matching program are OCSS (source agency) and state agencies administering the Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits program (non-federal agencies).
The authority for conducting the matching program is contained in section 453(j)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(j)(8)).
The purpose of the matching program is to compare name and Social Security number (SSN) combinations of UC applicant and recipient records from each SWA to new hire and quarterly wage information maintained in the OCSS NDNH system of records. Any match results from the comparison are returned to help the SWAs with establishing or verifying UC applicants' and recipients' eligibility for assistance, reducing payment errors, and maintaining program integrity, including determining whether duplicate participation exists or if an applicant or recipient resides in another state. The SWAs may also use the NDNH match information for secondary purposes, such as updating UC recipients' reported participation in work activities, updating recipients' and their employers' contact information, administering the SWAs' tax compliance function, and complying with U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) reporting requirements.
The categories of individuals involved in the matching program are UC applicants and recipients.
The categories of records involved in the SWA-NDNH matching program, which include personal identifiers, are new hire and quarterly wage. For successful comparison, the SWA input files sent to OCSS must be programmed according to SWA-NDNH Record Specifications and must include the individual applicant or recipient's name and SSN. The SWA may use alpha-numeric characters in the Passback Data field of the input file to identify the specific authorized purpose for which the record is being submitted for NDNH matching. They may also use the same State Data Indicator field to indicate whether or not to receive NDNH data that was provided by the state. OCSS will compare the name and SSNs in the SWA input file to the name and SSNs in the NDNH and will send the state agency an output file with any available new hire and quarterly wage information from the NDNH that matched the name and SSNs in the SWA input file records. The NDNH data elements OCSS will return to the state agency are:
• New hire processed date
• Employee name and address
• Employee date and state of hire
• Federal and state employer identification numbers
• Department of Defense code
• Employer name and address
• Transmitter agency code
• Transmitter state code
• Transmitter state or agency name
• Quarterly wage processed date
• Employee name
• Federal and state employer identification numbers
• Department of Defense code
• Employer name and address
• Employee wage amount
• Quarterly wage reporting period
• Transmitter agency code
• Transmitter state code
• Transmitter state or agency name
The NDNH data used in this matching program will be disclosed from the following OCSS system of records, as authorized by routine use 13:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (the Committee). The general function of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on July 18, 2025, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. The public will also have the option to participate, and the advisory committee meeting will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform.
Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings, including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation, may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2025-N-1450. The docket will close on July 17, 2025. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before July 3, 2025, will be provided to the Committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Joyce Frimpong, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7973, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at the location of the advisory committee meeting and at
For press inquiries, please contact the HHS Press Room at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Joyce Frimpong (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; request for applications.
The Coast Guard is requesting applications to fill eighteen (18) vacancies on the National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee advises the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to national commercial fishing safety. Please read the
Complete applications should reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before August 18, 2025.
Applications must include: (a) a cover letter that expresses the applicant's interest in an appointment to the Committee and details the applicant's qualifications to serve as a Special Government Employee representing the general public, and/or as a representative in one or more of the 18 other membership positions, (b) a resume detailing the applicant's relevant experience for the position applied for, and (c) a brief 2-3 paragraph biography written in third person. Applications should be submitted via email with subject line “NCFSAC Vacancy Application” to
Mr. Jonathan Wendland, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee; telephone 202-372-1245; or email at
The National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is a Federal advisory committee. The Committee was established on December 4, 2018, by section 601 of the
The Committee provides advice and recommendations in writing to the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters relating to the (1) safe operation of vessels to which chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code applies, including the matters of—(A) navigation safety; (B) safety equipment and procedures; (C) marine insurance; (D) vessel design, construction, maintenance, and operation; and (E) personnel qualifications and training; (2) review regulations proposed under chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code (during preparation of the regulations); and (3) review marine casualties and investigations of vessels covered by chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code and make recommendations to the Secretary to improve safety and reduce vessel casualties.
The Committee is required to meet at least twice a year in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 15109(a)(2)(A). We expect the Committee to meet at least twice a year, but it may meet more frequently. The meetings are selected by the U.S. Coast Guard and are generally held across the country as close as possible to commercial fishing communities.
Under provisions in 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(6), if you are appointed as a member of the Committee, your membership term will expire on December 31st of the third full year after the effective date of your appointment. The Secretary of Homeland Security may require an individual to have passed an appropriate security background examination before appointment to the Committee, per 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(4).
All members will serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other compensation from the Federal Government, with the exception that members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations.
In this solicitation for Committee members, we will consider applications for all 18 positions:
(A) Ten members shall represent the commercial fishing industry and—
(i) as a group, shall together reflect a regional and representational balance; and (ii) as individuals shall each have experience—
(I) in the operation of vessels in which chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code applies; or
(II) as a crew member or processing line worker on a fish processing vessel.
(B) One member shall represent naval architects and marine engineers.
(C) One member shall represent manufacturers of equipment for vessels to which Chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code applies.
(D) One member shall represent education and training professionals related to fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, and fish tender vessel safety and personnel qualifications.
(E) One member shall represent underwriters that insure vessels to which chapter 45 of title 46 United States Code applies.
(F) One member shall represent owners of vessels to which chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code applies.
(G) Three members shall represent the general public and, to the extent possible, shall include—
(i) an independent expert or consultant in maritime safety;
(ii) a marine surveyor who provides services to vessels to which chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code applies; and
(iii) a person familiar with issues affecting fishing communities and the families of fishermen.
The members who will fill positions (A) through (F) as described above will be appointed to represent the interest of their respective groups and viewpoints and are not Special Government Employees as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a). As representatives, the members are expected to represent and speak on behalf of interests, views, or perspectives of a recognizable group of persons or class of stakeholders.
If you are selected to fill position (G) as described above, as a member drawn from the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a). Applicants for appointment as a Special Government Employee are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450) for new entrants online and receive ethics training. The U.S. Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal Court or as otherwise provided under the
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal Advisory Committees in an individual capacity. See “
If you are appointed as a member of the Committee, you will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a Gratuitous Services Agreement.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, email your application to
Once we receive your application, we will send you an email confirming receipt.
The U.S. Coast Guard will not consider incomplete or late applications.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gives notice of a public meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the ANS Task Force is to develop and implement a program for U.S. waters to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic invasive species; to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related information.
The ANS Task Force will meet Tuesday and Wednesday, July 8-9, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day (eastern time).
The meeting will be held via teleconference and broadcast over the internet. To register and receive the telephone number or web address for remote participation, contact the Executive Secretary (see
Susan Pasko, Executive Secretary, ANS Task Force, by telephone at (571) 623-0608, or by email at
The Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and is composed of Federal and ex-officio members. The purpose of the ANS Task Force is to develop and implement a program for U.S. waters to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic invasive species; to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related information.
This meeting is open to the public. The meeting agenda includes reports from ANS Task Force members, reports and recommendations from regional panels and subcommittees, discussion on priority outputs to advance the goals identified in the ANS Task Force Strategic Plan for 2020-2025, presentations highlighting invasive species challenges and innovative measures for ANS prevention and control, and a public comment period. The final agenda and other related meeting information will be posted on the ANS Task Force website,
If you wish to provide oral public comment or provide a written comment for the ANS Task Force to consider, contact the ANS Task Force Executive Secretary (see
Depending on the number of people who want to comment and the time available, the amount of time for individual oral comments may be limited. Interested parties should contact the ANS Task Force Executive Secretary (see
Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodations. Please contact the ANS Task Force Executive Secretary (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in any comment you may have about this notice, 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.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the United States Geological Survey (USGS, we) 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 17, 2025.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Jack Friedman by email at
In accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
On August 1, 2024, USGS published a 60-day
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
Part of the USGS's function is to communicate with emergency managers, public safety officials, and others during hazard events and to conduct post-crisis analysis (USGS, SM 120.1.3.A.6-7). With this in mind, the USGS proposes to conduct a number of data collection efforts within the topic areas of hazards preparedness, response, and recovery studies, and community resilience and sustainability. These efforts include studies of specific disaster events (
These data collection efforts may be either qualitative or quantitative in nature or may consist of mixed methods. Additionally, data may be collected via a variety of means, including but not limited to electronic or social media, direct or indirect observation (
The USGS will utilize this information collection to conduct research in support of topic areas of natural hazard-related disaster studies and community resilience. This type of research is directly related to a range of hazards that are unpredictable in their number and scale during a given year. Additionally, some hazard events may require multiple studies resulting in multiple collections. Therefore, in light of the uncertainties regarding the frequency and extent of severe hazard events, the USGS is requesting the ICR annual response allotment be set at 4,500 responses and the ICR annual hours allotment at 2,000 hours.
The USGS will collect this information by electronic means, when possible, as well as by mail, fax, telephone, technical discussions, and in-person interviews. The USGS may also utilize observational techniques to collect this information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, nor is a person 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 of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Gunn Memorial Library and Museum intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Corinne Tabolt, Collections Manager, Gunn Memorial Library and Museum, 5 Wykeham Road, Washington, CT 06793, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Gunn Memorial Library and Museum and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The
A total of four cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The four objects of cultural patrimony are baskets, fire sticks, and a comb. Items are from the Northwestern coast/Washington region which were collected then given to Senator Orville H. Platt and his wife over the course of twenty years while he was a member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs from 1879-1905. Platt's wife, Jeannie, then donated the items to the Museum in 1908, as the first curator. The items were then given on permanent loan to the Institute of American Indian Studies in 1981. The Museum records indicate no known hazardous substances.
The Gunn Memorial Library and Museum has determined that:
• The four objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Gunn Memorial Library and Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Gunn Memorial Library and Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Duke University has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is no lineal descendant and no Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Dr. Steven Churchill, Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Box 90383, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Duke University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. During inventory and curation work with human skeletal material used in anatomical teaching, members of the faculty of Duke University's Department of Evolutionary Anthropology became aware of a skull, potentially representing a Native American, stored in a cabinet in the laboratory of one of our faculty. Investigation revealed that the skull has been in the department since at least 1973, and that the details of its acquisition fall beyond the institutional memory of our most senior faculty. No other information about provenience or provenance is available. Features of the face and cranial vault, as well as the surface characteristics of the bone, strongly suggest that the individual represents a prehistoric Native American. No known hazardous substances have been applied to the bone.
Invitations to consult were sent to the Catawba Indian Nation; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Monacan Indian Nation; Nansemond Indian Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the Tuscarora Nation. The Catawba Indian Nation; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Monacan Indian Nation, and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation responded to the invitation to consult; with the exception of the Monacan Indian Nation (who deferred to the other Tribes), all of these Tribes participated in the consultation.
The following types of information about the cultural affiliation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are available: anthropological. The information, including the results of consultation, identified:
1. No earlier group connected to the human remains.
2. No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization connected to the human remains.
3. No relationship of shared group identity between the earlier group and the Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that can be reasonably traced through time.
Duke University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• No known lineal descendant who can trace ancestry to the human remains in this notice has been identified.
• No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation to the human remains in this notice has been clearly or reasonably identified.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains described in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Duke University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. Duke University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to any consulting lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Archaeological Survey of Idaho Western Repository, Idaho State Historical Society (ASI-WR), has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Tricia L. Canaday, Idaho State Historical Society, 210 Main Street, Boise, ID 83702, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the ASI-WR, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, 19 individuals have been identified. The 26 associated funerary objects are stone tools, shell beads, bone tools, and ochre. The individuals and associated funerary objects were recovered in 1967 and 1968 by Idaho State University and Boise State College during excavations on private land in Weiser, Washington County, Idaho. They were transferred to the ASI-WR in the 1980s as part of a statewide redistribution of archaeological collections and represent several distinct primary and secondary burials interred between 3000- and 6000-years BP.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The ASI-WR has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 19 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 26 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Nez Perce Tribe ; Shoshone Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation; and the Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the ASI-WR must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The ASI-WR is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (FAMSF) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Christina Hellmich, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive, San Francisco, CA 94118, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of FAMSF and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of two cultural item lots have been requested for repatriation. The two objects of cultural patrimony are one lot of pestles and one lot of mortars. These two lots of cultural items (FAMSF Accession 51890) were removed at some point, before 1924, from Folsom, CA. These cultural items were gifted to FAMSF by Mr. Raymer W. Hayes in memory of Colonel John F. Hayes in 1924. In 1964, FAMSF loaned part of one lot to the East Bay Regional Parks District. In 2019, East Bay Regional Parks returned one item to FAMSF. There is no documentation of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the cultural items.
FAMSF has determined that:
• Two lots of objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, FAMSF must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. FAMSF is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has completed an inventory of associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Lindsay Busse and Althea Asaro, PQS Principal Investigators—Prehistoric Archaeology, California Department of Transportation, District 4, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Caltrans, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Associated funerary objects have been identified totaling 76 catalog entries representing lithics, faunal remains, shell, net sinker, and ground stone artifacts. Of the 76 associated funerary objects, no catalog numbers are missing. These two collections are from Marin County along Highway 1 near Point Reyes Station, Tomales Bay and are housed at Sonoma State University (SSU). The collections are the result of Caltrans project-delivery related excavations at the following sites between 1999 and 2006: CA-MRN-482/H (Acc. 2022-7); CA-MRN-651 (Acc. 2022-6). There are no known/documented potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the cultural items.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the associated funerary objects described in this notice.
Caltrans has determined that:
• The 76 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Caltrans must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. Caltrans is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology, University of Kentucky (WSWM) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Celise Chilcote-Fricker, William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, 1020 Export Street, Lexington, KY 40504, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the WSWM, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been reasonably identified. The four associated funerary objects are one lot ceramic, one lot lithic, one lot faunal and one soil sample. Site 15CY/OWxx, Clay Bluff Shelter, of Clay or Owsley County, Kentucky was donated by a private collector to the WSWM at an unknown time. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, six individuals have been reasonably identified. The one associated funerary object is one lot of faunal. Site 15CYxx was collected by Kentucky State Police from the Manchester lumberyard in Clay County, Kentucky and donated to the University of Kentucky Museum of Anthropology in 1965. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been reasonably identified. The one associated funerary object is a sandstone slab. Site 15HL13, Anderson Rockshelter in Harlan County, Kentucky was excavated in 1981 by University of Kentucky Museum of Anthropology staff and the Office of State Archaeology in response to a Kentucky State Police request about looting. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, seven individuals have been reasonably identified. The 13 associated funerary objects are one lot botanics, one lot ceramic, one lot charcoal, two lots faunal, one lot flotation, one lot lithic, one lot shell, two bone beads, one grinding/nutting stone, one projectile point, and one engraved shell gorget. Site 15KX24, Croley-Evans in Knox County, Kentucky was first surveyed by archaeologists from the Office of State Archaeology in 1978, then in 1979 remains were donated to the WSWM by the Kentucky Heritage Commission and then excavated in 1992-1994 and 1996 by University of Kentucky archaeologists as part of the Upper Cumberland Archaeological Project. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been reasonably identified. The seven associated funerary objects are one deer antler, one lot ceramic, one lot faunal, one floatation, one lot lithic, one lot shell, and one soil sample. Site 15PE08, Hall Shelter of Perry County, KY was surveyed, and surface collected by the Kentucky Heritage Commission in 1977, then excavated in 1978 and 1979 as part of a University of Kentucky Anthropology Department thesis project. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been reasonably identified. The four associated funerary objects are one lot botanics, one lot faunal, one lot lithics and one lot shell. Site 15PExx, Dead Man's Hollow in Perry County, Kentucky was donated to the WSWM in 1991 by the family of a private collector. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Site 15PUxx, a rockshelter in Pulaski County, Kentucky was sent to the University of Kentucky Museum of Anthropology for analysis. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Site 15PUxx, an unknown cave in Pulaski County, Kentucky was collected in 1910 and then donated to the WSWM in 2009. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. The one associated funerary object is a deer tibia. Site 15PU22, Jones Cave in Pulaski County, Kentucky was excavated by an amateur archaeologist in 1977 and then reported it to the Kentucky Heritage Commission who surveyed and surface collected, then donated to the WSWM. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least,
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. The two associated funerary objects are one lot lithic and one grinding slab. Site 15Pu35, the Estil Grover Rockshelter in Pulaski County, Kentucky was surface collected by the Kentucky Heritage Council in 1977 and then donated to the WSWM. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Site 15PU236, the Burton Shelter in Pulaski County, Kentucky was excavated by an amateur archaeologist and members of the Central Kentucky Archaeological Society in 1961-1962 and then donated to the WSWM in 1991. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been reasonably identified. The 21 associated funerary objects are one lot faunal, 19 flint knives and one fossil crinoid stem. Site 15PU237, the Bobtown Shelter in Pulaski County, Kentucky was excavated by an amateur archaeologist and members of the Central Kentucky Archaeological Society in 1961and then donated to the WSWM in 1991. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Site 15PU238, the Little Burial Shelter in Pulaski County, Kentucky was excavated by an amateur archaeologist and members of the Central Kentucky Archaeological Society in 1961 and donated to the WSWM in 1991. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, 18 individuals have been reasonably identified. The 167 associated funerary objects are one antler flaker, one anvil stone, two black shale hoes, six blanks, 25 bone awls, one bone needle, one bone pendant, two celts, three celt fragments, one ceramic pipe, one cut wolf jaw, one drilled mussel shell, two expanded bar gorgets, one flint knife, one groundhog tooth pendant, four hammerstones, one hematite polishing stone, 20 limestone hoes, three limestone pestles, one lithic discoidal, one lithic drill, two lithic gorgets, 41 lithic projectile points, one piece of mica, one modified bear tooth, one modified deer ulna, two plummets, four scrapers, 30 shell beads, one shell spoon, two lots ceramic, one lot faunal, one lot lithic and one lot shell. Site 15WN01, Hines Cave in Wayne County, Kentucky was excavated in 1922 by the future founders of the WSWM. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Site 15WN02, Hogg Cave/Widow Conley Cave in Wayne County, Kentucky was surface collected in 1922 by Webb and Funkhouser. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, six individuals have been reasonably identified. The eight associated funerary objects are one bear tooth pendant, one bone fishhook, one lot charcoal, one lot faunal, one lot lithic, one lithic projectile point, one drilled faunal cranial bone, and one human effigy head pipe. Site 15WN96, Monticello Cave in Wayne County, Kentucky was excavated by a private collector until 2007 when his collection was turned in to the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Services who brought it to the WSWM. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Site 15WH00, an unknown site in Whitley County, Kentucky was excavated by an amateur archaeologist and sent to a former director of the WSWM in 1975. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The WSWM has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 67 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 232 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the WSWM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The WSWM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Los Rios Community College District (LRCCD) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Jamey Nye, Los Rios Community College District, 1919 Spanos Ct, Arden-Arcade, CA 95825, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of LRCCD, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been reasonably identified. Likely in 1937, the individuals were removed from an “Indian Mound” in Casmalia, Santa Barbara County, CA by Jeremiah B. Lillard, the first president of Sacramento Junior College, now Sacramento City College (SCC). In 2024, the ancestors and associated funerary object were located in the SCC Geology department during a campus-wide audit of collections. The one associated funerary object is a stone mano. LRCCD does not have record of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat the human remains and associated funerary object.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. On an unknown date before 1941, the individual was removed from Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara County, CA by Jeremiah B. Lillard. In 2024, the individual was located in the SCC Geology department during a campus wide audit of collections. LRCCD does not have record of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat the human remains.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
LRCCD has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The one object described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, LRCCD must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. LRCCD is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, National Museum of Health and Medicine has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Mr. Brian F. Spatola, Curator of Anatomical Division, National Museum of Health and Medicine, U.S. Army Garrison Forest Glen, 2500 Linden Lane, Silver Spring, MD 20910, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the National Museum of Health and Medicine, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Four individuals were removed from Santa Barbara County, CA. The remains consist of a partial adult femur removed from an unknown location in Santa Barbara County, CA, during the U.S. Geological Survey West of the 100th Meridian in 1875; an adult cranium removed from La Palera No. 1, eight miles from Santa Barbara, CA, on the ranch of Mr. Alexander Moore during the U.S. Geological Survey West of the 100th Meridian in 1875; and two adult crania removed from San Miguel Island, CA, and purchased from Ward's Natural Science Establishment in 1896. One individual was removed from an unknown location on the Channel Islands, CA. The remains consist of an adult cranium and mandible purchased from Ward's Natural Science Establishment on an unknown date.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The National Museum of Health and Medicine has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the National Museum of Health and Medicine must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The National Museum of Health and Medicine is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Sonoma State University has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Doshia Dodd, Sonoma State University, 1801 East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Sonoma State University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual removed from CA-SON-392 near Petaluma, CA in Sonoma County, has been reasonably identified. The 314 lots of associated funerary objects are Botanical remains; Flaked stone tools and debitage; Faunal bone tools; ground stone tools; Modified faunal bone and shell; Shell beads; Unmodified faunal bone and shell. The collection has been housed at Sonoma State University since 1974, under the following Accession Number 74-4.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, six individuals removed from CA-SON-860/H near Downtown Santa Rosa, CA in Sonoma County, have been reasonably identified. The 3,455 lots of associated funerary objects are flaked stone tools and debitage, ground stone tools, faunal bone, shell, historic material, modified faunal bone, botanical remains and baked clay. The collection has been housed at Sonoma State University since 1984, under the following Accession Number 84-12.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual removed from CA-SON-1165 near Sebastopol, CA in Sonoma County, have been reasonably identified. The 2,304 lots of associated funerary objects are Flaked stone tools and debitage; ground stone tools; Charmstones; Unmodified faunal bone; and Dietary shell. The collection has been housed at Sonoma State University since 1979, under the following Accession Numbers 79-11.
Based on records concerning the associated funerary objects and the institution in which they were housed, there is no evidence of the three lots of cultural items being treated with hazardous substances.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Sonoma State University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of eight individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 6,073 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Sonoma State University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Sonoma State University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Buffalo Bill Museum and Grave intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an object of cultural patrimony and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Rebecca Jacobs, Buffalo Bill Museum and Grave, 987
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Buffalo Bill Museum and Grave, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one object of cultural patrimony is a double ball (T2023.1.1). This double ball was recently donated to the museum by a relative of Reverend George Allen Beecher. Beecher was a bishop who developed a friendship with William F. “Buffalo Bill” Cody and Cody's family including Johnny Baker, Cody's foster son, who later became, along with his wife, Olive Baker, founder of the museum. Beecher spent most of his life in Nebraska working in a religious capacity. He worked at the Fort Sidney Mission in Sidney, Nebraska; the Church of Our Survivors in North Platte, Nebraska; St. Luke's Church in Kearney, Nebraska; he became Dean of Trinity Cathedral in Omaha, Nebraska; and then became Bishop of the Missionary District of Western Nebraska. According to his autobiography, through his time as a religious leader, he developed relationships with people he referred to as Sioux. A close friend of Cody, he attended Buffalo Bill's Wild West as a guest in 1901 and traveled with the show for the 1905 season where he interacted with the Lakota performers employed with the show. To the current knowledge of museum staff there is no known presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat the double ball.
The Buffalo Bill Museum and Grave has determined that:
• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Buffalo Bill Museum and Grave must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Buffalo Bill Museum and Grave is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Yale Peabody Museum, Yale University has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Yale Peabody Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The four associated funerary objects are one lot unmodified faunal remains, one lot shell, one lot stone, and one lot ceramics.
Prior to 1897, George H. Fountain removed the remains and associated funerary objects from the bank of the North Shrewsbury River (Navesink River), likely in the vicinity of Claypit Creek, in Monmouth County, New Jersey. George H. Fountain donated the remains and associated funerary objects to the Yale Peabody Museum in 1912.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Yale Peabody Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The four objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Yale Peabody Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Yale Peabody Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Los Rios Community College District (LRCCD) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Jamey Nye, Los Rios Community College District, 1919 Spanos Ct, Arden-Arcade, CA 95825, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of LRCCD, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, nine individuals have been reasonably identified. In 2023 and 2024, the individuals were located on the Sacramento City College, Folsom Lake College, and American River College campuses, three of four colleges within the Los Rios Community College District (LRCCD), during a campus wide audit. Based on Tribal knowledge and the acquisition history of the district, the individuals were very likely removed from somewhere in California by Jeremiah B. Lillard, the first president of Sacramento Junior College, now Sacramento City College, between 1923 and 1940. The exact location of where Lillard removed the ancestors is
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, 40 individuals have been reasonably identified. In 2023 and 2024, the individuals were located on the American River College, Cosumnes River College, and Sacramento City College campuses, three of four campuses within LRCCD, during a campus-wide audit of collections. The individuals were located without any associated paperwork, but based on the acquisition history of the district, it is likely the individuals were removed from California. The three associated funerary objects are one lot of faunal bone and two rocks. LRCCD does not have any knowledge or record of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains and associated funerary objects.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
LRCCD has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 49 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The three objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California; Alturas Indian Rancheria, California; Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, California; Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, California; Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Big Lagoon Rancheria, California; Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley; Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California; Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, California; Bishop Paiute Tribe; Blue Lake Rancheria, California; Bridgeport Indian Colony; Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-wuk Indians of California; Burns Paiute Tribe; Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians (
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, LRCCD must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. LRCCD is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Chico has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Rachel McBride-Praetorius, California State University, Chico, 400 W 1st Street, Chico, CA 95929, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of California State University, Chico and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing at least one individual have been identified. The sole documentation associated with the individual reads, “Chumash Joe, Southern California.” No associated funerary objects are present.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of human remains described in this notice.
California State University, Chico has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, California State University, Chico must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Denver Museum of Nature & Science intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of a sacred object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Dr. Michele Koons, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80205, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one sacred object is a hair ornament.
The one sacred object, ID# AC.24, consists of a hair ornament containing a triangular beaded pattern, a silver concha, and bear claws. The entire object is approximately four inches in diameter.
The hair ornament was in the primary possession of Buckskin Charley, also known as Sapiah, in the secondary possession of S.F. May, who acquired it an unknown date, and in the tertiary possession of Mr. George A. Cuneo, whose collection was on loan to the Denver Art Museum from 1937 to 1956. After Cuneo's estate was settled, some of his collection was sold to Erich Kohlberg of Kohlberg's Antiques and Indian Arts in Denver, Colorado. The hair ornament was then purchased from Kohlberg by Mary and Francis Crane and donated to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science in 1968.
Joyce Herold of the Denver Museum of Natural History (now the Denver Museum of Nature & Science) believed the object to be originally owned by Buckskin Charley.
The hair ornament was formerly on display in the “Navajo section” of DMNS North American Indigenous Cultures Hall, which has been closed to the public since June 2023. When DMNS deinstalled the “Navajo section”, the hair ornament was in this section because it also has a silver concha attached to it.
The Denver Museum of Nature & Science has determined that:
• The one sacred object described in this notice is a specific ceremonial object needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects or sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Deanna Byrd, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 221 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. These cultural items consist of 206 unassociated funerary objects and 15 sacred objects from sites in Davidson, Dickson, Jackson, Marion, McMinn, Sumner, and Williamson Counties, TN.
The 14 unassociated funerary objects removed from the Bowling Farm Site (40DV426) in Davidson County, TN, include 13 objects that are present at the PMAE and one object that is not currently located. The 13 unassociated funerary objects present at the PMAE are 13 lots consisting of stone, shell, and faunal items. The one unassociated funerary object not currently located is one lot consisting of shell items. These objects were collected in 1877 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE the same year.
The one unassociated funerary object removed from the Brick Church Mound and Village Site (40DV39), also known as “Love Mound,” in Davidson County, TN, is one lot consisting of stone items. Thomas B. Ballow collected this lot of objects at an unknown date and donated them to the PMAE in 1877.
The two unassociated funerary objects removed from J.M. Overton's Farm (40DV11), also known as the Traveller's Rest site, in Davidson County, TN, are two lots consisting of stone items. These objects were collected by Mrs. John M. Overton at an unknown date and donated to the PMAE in 1877.
The three unassociated funerary objects removed from Marshall's Farm in Davidson County, TN, are three lots consisting of worked stone items. These objects were collected in 1878 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE in 1879.
The nine unassociated funerary objects removed from Mr. Gower's Place in Davidson County, TN are nine lots consisting of stone, lava, and ceramic items. These objects were collected in 1879 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE Expedition and accessioned by the PMAE the same year.
The 16 unassociated funerary objects removed from Noel Cemetery (40DV3), including the areas also known as Cain's Field and Cain's Farm, in Davidson County, TN, include 11 objects that are present at the PMAE and five objects that are not currently located. The 11 unassociated funerary objects present at the PMAE are 11 lots consisting of stone and ceramic items. The five unassociated funerary objects not currently located are five lots consisting of ceramic, faunal, and stone items. These objects were collected in 1878 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE the same year.
The nine unassociated funerary objects removed from T.F. Wilkinson's Farm (40DV6), also known as the Gordontown site, in Davidson County, TN, include eight objects that are present at the PMAE and one object that is not currently located. The eight unassociated funerary objects present at the PMAE are eight lots of stone and ceramic items. The one unassociated funerary object not currently located is one lot of stone items. These objects were collected in 1877 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE the same year.
The one unassociated funerary object removed from the vicinity of Sulphur Spring, near Nashville, Davidson County, TN, is one lot consisting of stone items. These objects were collected in 1879 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE the same year.
The seven sacred objects removed from the Brick Church Mound and Village Site (40DV39), also known as “Love Mound”, in Davidson County, TN, are seven lots consisting of coal, charcoal, shell, clay or ceramic, and stone items, and other natural materials. Federic Ward Putnam collected these sacred objects in 1877 and donated them to the PMAE the same year.
The one sacred object removed from Edgefield Mound in Davidson County, TN, is one lot consisting of stone items. This sacred object was collected in 1878 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE the same year.
The 22 unassociated funerary objects removed from Anderson's Farm (40DS44) in Dickson County, TN, include 21 objects that are present at the PMAE and one object that is not currently located. The 21 unassociated funerary objects present at the PMAE are 21 lots consisting of stone and ceramic items. The one unassociated funerary object not currently located is one lot consisting of stone items. These objects were collected in 1879 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE the same year.
The one unassociated funerary object removed from graves at an unknown location in Dickson County, TN, is one lot consisting of a “necklace” made of stone or fossil beads. This object was collected by Dr. Frederic T. Lewis in the 1920s and donated to the PMAE by Mrs. Frederic T. Lewis in 1963.
The three unassociated funerary objects from unknown sites in Dickson County, TN, are three lots consisting of stone items. These objects were collected by George T. Halley in 1887 and donated to the PMAE by Halley the same year.
The six unassociated funerary objects removed from caves in Jackson County, TN, include five objects present at the PMAE and one object not currently located. The five objects present at the PMAE are five lots consisting of stone, shell, ceramic, and faunal items. The one object not currently located is one lot consisting of shell items. These objects were collected in 1877 and 1878 by Edwin Curtiss as part of PMAE expeditions and were donated by Curtiss and General G.P. Thruston in 1877 and 1878.
The four unassociated funerary objects removed from the Holloway Mounds site in Marion County, TN, are four lots consisting of stone and ceramic items. These objects were collected in 1892 by John W. Emmert and donated to the PMAE by Emmert the same year.
The two unassociated funerary objects removed from the vicinity of Long Island, near Bridgeport, Marion County, TN, are two lots consisting of ceramic items identified as funerary objects based on object type. These objects were collected in 1879 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE the same year.
The one unassociated funerary object removed from a burial mound at the Shell Mound Site (40MI8) in Marion County, TN, is one lot consisting of stone items. This unassociated funerary object is not currently located at the PMAE. This object was collected in 1869 by Reverend E.O. Dunning as part
The three unassociated funerary objects removed from the Forrest Mounds site in McMinn County, TN, are three lots consisting of stone items. These objects were collected in 1892 by John W. Emmert and donated to the PMAE by Emmert the same year.
The three unassociated funerary objects removed from the Hudson Mound site in McMinn County, TN, are three lots consisting of stone and ceramic items. These objects were collected in 1892 by John W. Emmert and donated to the PMAE by Emmert in the same year.
The eight unassociated funerary objects removed from Michael Mound (40MN3), also known as the Mouse Creek Site, in McMinn County, TN, include seven objects present at the PMAE and one object not currently located. The seven unassociated funerary objects present are seven lots consisting of stone items. The one unassociated funerary object not currently located is one lot consisting of ceramic items. These objects were collected in 1892 by John W. Emmert and donated to the PMAE by Emmert the same year.
The seven unassociated funerary objects removed from Raht Island in McMinn County, TN, are seven lots consisting of stone and ceramic items. These objects were collected in 1892 by John W. Emmert and donated to the PMAE by Emmert the same year.
The one unassociated funerary object removed from Ware Mound in McMinn County, TN, is one lot consisting of ceramic items. These objects were collected in 1892 by John W. Emmert and donated to the PMAE by Emmert the same year.
The three unassociated funerary objects removed from graves at the Rutherford-Kizer Site (40SU14) in Sumner County, TN, are three lots consisting of shell items. These unassociated funerary objects are not currently located at the PMAE. These objects were collected in 1878 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE in 1879.
The three unassociated funerary objects removed from unknown sites in Sumner County, TN, are three lots consisting of ceramic items identified as funerary objects based on object type. These objects were collected in 1878 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE in 1879.
The 62 unassociated funerary objects removed from the Dr. Jarman Site (40WM210), also known as “Brentwood Cemetery,” in Williamson County, TN, include 60 objects that are present at the PMAE and two objects that are not currently located. The 60 unassociated funerary objects present are 60 lots consisting of organic materials and stone, ceramic, and faunal items. The two unassociated funerary objects not currently located are two lots consisting of ceramic items. These objects were collected at various times by different collectors, including by the landowner Dr. W.H. Jarman (1882), and by Frederic Ward Putnam (1882) and George Woods (1883) as part of PMAE Expeditions. The PMAE accessioned the objects donated by Jarman and collected by Putnam and Woods in 1882 and 1883.
The two unassociated funerary objects removed from Emily Hayes's Farm (40WM5), also known as the “Arnold Site,” in Williamson County, TN, are two lots consisting of ceramic and stone items. These objects were collected in 1879 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE in 1879.
The eight unassociated funerary objects removed from Glass Mounds in Williamson County, TN, include six objects that are present at the PMAE and two objects that are not currently located. The six unassociated funerary objects present are six lots consisting of faunal, ceramic, and stone or mineral items. The two unassociated funerary objects not currently located are two lots consisting of “red paint” and ceramic items. These objects were collected in 1879 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE in 1879.
The 11 unassociated funerary objects from Gray's Farm (40WM11), also known as the “Fisher-Reams Site,” in Williamson County, TN, include two objects that are present at the PMAE and nine objects that are not currently located. The two unassociated funerary objects present are two lots consisting of stone items. The nine unassociated funerary objects not currently located are nine lots consisting of stone, shell, and ceramic items. These objects were collected in 1878 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE in 1878.
The one unassociated funerary object removed from an unknown location in Williamson County, TN, is one lot consisting of shell items identified as funerary objects based on object type. This object was collected in 1878 by Edwin Curtiss as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE in 1878.
The seven sacred objects from the Chenoweth Site (40WM86), also known as “John Owen Hunt's Farm,” in Williamson County, TN, include four objects that are present at the PMAE and three objects that are not currently located. The four sacred objects present are four lots consisting of ceramic items, stone items, faunal remains, and other natural materials. The three sacred objects not currently located are three lots consisting of faunal remains, shell, and botanical remains. These sacred objects were collected in 1882 by Frederic Ward Putnam as part of a PMAE expedition and accessioned by the PMAE in 1882.
The PMAE has determined that:
• The 206 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The 15 sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Yale Peabody Museum, Yale University has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Yale Peabody Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Prior to 1868, Dr. Gouverneur Emerson removed the remains from a mound five or six miles east of Dover, Kent County, Delaware. The remains were likely taken from “Rich Neck,” the Emerson family farm near Little Creek. Dr. Gouverneur Emerson donated the remains to the Yale Peabody Museum in 1868 or 1869.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
The Yale Peabody Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma and the Delaware Tribe of Indians.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Yale Peabody Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Yale Peabody Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains (hereinafter referred to as “Ancestral remains” or “Ancestors”) and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the ancestral remains and associated funerary object in this notice to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Office Managing Director, University of Michigan, Office of Research, Suite G269, Lane Hall, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1274, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Michigan, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation,
Ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The three associated funerary objects are one lot of earthenware sherds, one lot of unworked animal bone fragments in soil matrix, and one lot of worked gastropod columella shell central spiral. In February of 1946, Ancestral remains from the Collier City/Fort Drum site in Okeechobee Co, FL, were removed by Violet K. Hanley and donated to UMMAA in 1950. The Ancestral remains are of an adult of indeterminate sex. Dating for the site is unknown.
Ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The four associated funerary objects are one lot of worked Busycon sp. shell, one lot of earthenware rim sherds, one lot of earthenware body sherds, and one lot of animal bone fragment. In 1948, Ancestral remains from the Collier City Marco Island site (8CR45, 8CR46) in Collier Co, FL, were removed by Violet K. Hanley and donated to the UMMAA in 1948. The Ancestral remains are of an adult of indeterminate sex. Dating for the site is unknown.
Ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Prior to 1941, Ancestral remains from the Key near Stuart site from Martin Co, FL, were removed by Dr. E.J. O'Brien and Captain O.L. Hawk during a visit to an island 40-50 miles northeast of Palm Beach near Stuart. The Ancestral remains are of an adult 40-55 years. Dating for the site is unknown.
Ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On May 11th, 1931, Ancestral remains from the Lake Dora site from Lake Co, FL, were donated to UMMAA by Robert M. Mansfield. The Ancestral remains are of an adult 35+ years, possible male. Dating for the site is unknown.
Ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1933, Ancestral remains from the Morey Beach site from Pinellas Co, FL, were donated to UMMAA by William Fargo, who obtained the Ancestral remains from M. B. Harden. The Ancestral remains are of an adult 30+ years male. Dating for the site is unknown.
Ancestral remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, Ancestral remains from the Hog Island site from Hillsboro Co, FL, were donated to UMMAA by an unknown individual. The Ancestral remains are of two adults of indeterminate sex. Dating for the site is unknown.
Ancestral remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, Ancestral remains from the Fernandina site from Nassau Co, FL, were donated to UMMAA by an unknown individual. The Ancestral remains are of two adults of indeterminate sex. Dating for the site is unknown.
Ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The one associated funerary object is one lot worked shell tools. On an unknown date, Ancestral remains from the Tick Island site (8VO24, 8VO25) from Volusia Co, FL, were removed from the site and donated to UMMAA by an unknown individual. The associated funerary object was removed from the site and donated to UMMAA in 1963 by R.P. Bullen. The Ancestral remains are of one adult of indeterminate sex. Dating for the site is unknown.
The University of Michigan has no record of, nor do its officials have any knowledge of, any treatment of items with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that represent a potential hazard to the collection(s) or to persons handling the collection(s).
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The University of Michigan has determined that:
• The Ancestral remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The eight objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual Ancestral remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Michigan must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of Michigan is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Ms. Livia Taylor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, ATTN: CENWO-PMA-C, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District and Nebraska State Historical Society, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at minimum, 15 individuals were removed from a site in Buffalo County, South Dakota. No associated funerary objects are present. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, including Tribal oral history, archeological and geographical information, the Ancestors described in this Notice are consistent with cultural affiliation of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota. No known substances were used to treat the Ancestors described in this notice.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District and Nebraska State Historical Society have determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 15 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District and Nebraska State Historical Society must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District and Nebraska State Historical Society is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Peabody Essex Museum (PEM) intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an object of cultural patrimony and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after July 17, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Kelly Ferguson, NAGPRA Project Manager, Peabody Essex Museum, 161 Essex Street, Salem, MA 01970, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Peabody Essex Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The object of cultural patrimony is an adze blade preform from Mauna Kea Quarry on the Island of Hawaii. The adze blade was collected by Marcia Brown Bishop during the period of 1922 and 1937 when she was living in Hawaii. Bishop transferred the adze blade to the Peabody Museum of Salem (now Peabody Essex Museum) on deposit in 1938 and subsequently sold the blade to the museum in 1966. The museum has no record of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat this cultural item.
The Peabody Essex Museum has determined that:
• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and Protect Keopuka Ohana.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 17, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Peabody Essex Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Peabody Essex Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective April 26, 2024, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Magotteaux Inc., Franklin, Tennessee.
The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of high chrome cast iron grinding media from India 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 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 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 11, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5632 (June 2025), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
June 11, 2025.
Caitlyn Costello (202-205-2058), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On May 12, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigation (90 FR 23066, May 30, 2025). Subsequently, the American Molded Fiber Coalition requested to change the date of the hearing in these investigations from September 25, 2025, to September 30, 2025. The Commission granted the request and is revising its schedule.
The Commission's revised dates in the schedule are as follows: the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on September 19, 2025; requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission not later than 5:15 p.m. on September 25, 2025; the prehearing conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building on September 29, 2025, if deemed necessary; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on September 30, 2025; and the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on October 7, 2025.
For further information concerning these proceedings, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 13, 2025, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Epson Portland Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon; Epson America, Inc. of Los Alamitos, California; and Seiko Epson Corporation of Japan. Supplements to the complaint were filed on May 19 and 30, 2025, and June 3, 2025. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ink cartridges and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,540,347 (“the '347 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,061,508 (“the '508 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,535,037 (“the '037 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,820,150 (“the '150 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 12,246,539 (“the '539 patent”). The complaint, as supplemented, further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 14, 16-17, 20, and 23 of the '347 patent; claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, and 19 of the '508 patent; claims 1 and 9-10 of the '037 patent; claims 1, 9-11, and 19-20 of the '150 patent; and claims 1-2, 9-11, 18-20, and 27 of the '539 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “ink jet cartridge products and components thereof for use in Epson ink jet printers”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 13, 2025, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Epson Portland Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon; Epson America, Inc. of Los Alamitos, California; and Seiko Epson Corporation of Japan. Supplements to the complaint were filed on May 19 and 30, 2025, and June 3, 2025. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ink cartridges and components thereof II by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,764,172 (“the '172 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,370,934 (“the '934 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,535,038 (“the '038 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 12,240,248 (“the '248 Patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 12,240,249 (“the '249 Patent”). The complaint, as supplemented, further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 10 of the '172 patent; claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 of the '934 patent; claims 1, 7, 12, 17, 19-20, and 24 of the '038 patent; claims 1, 7, 13, 15, 20, and 21 of the '248 patent; claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13-15, and 20-22 of the '249 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “ink jet cartridge products and components thereof for use in Epson ink jet printers”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before July 17, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The standard requires employers to train workers about the hazards of 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP), to monitor worker exposure, to provide medical surveillance, and maintain accurate records of worker exposure to DBCP. These records will be used by employers, workers, physicians and the Government to ensure that workers are not harmed by exposure to DBCP in the workplace. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before July 17, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
States choosing to operate OSHA-approved State plans must provide information to document that their programs are “at least as effective” as the Federal OSHA program. In order to obtain and maintain State Plan approval, a State must submit various documents to OSHA describing its program structure and operation, including any modifications thereto as they occur, in accordance with the identified regulations. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of Intent to Grant exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license to practice the inventions described and claimed in the patents and/or patent applications listed in
The prospective exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument, no later than July 2, 2025 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications
Written objections relating to the prospective license or requests for further information may be submitted to Agency Counsel for Intellectual Property, NASA Headquarters at email:
NASA intends to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive, or partially exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the inventions described and claimed in: Patent Application Serial No. 18/521,454, filed on November 28, 2020, to Psionic Inc., having its principal place of business in Hampton, Virginia. The fields of use may be limited. NASA has not yet made a final determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of Intent to Grant exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license to practice the inventions described and claimed in the patents and/or patent applications listed in
The prospective exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument, no later than July 2, 2025 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than July 2, 2025 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Written objections relating to the prospective license or requests for further information may be submitted to Agency Counsel for Intellectual Property, NASA Headquarters at Email:
NASA intends to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive, or partially exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the inventions described and claimed in: U.S. Patent 10,929,966 entitled, “System and Method for Imaging Underwater Environments Using Fluid Lensing” and U.S. Patent 10,041,833 entitled, “System and Method for Active Multispectral Imaging and Optical Communications,” to VedPhoto LLC having its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. The fields of use may be limited. NASA has not yet made a final determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
We are announcing an upcoming meeting of the State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Policy Advisory Committee (SLTPS-PAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and implementing regulations.
The meeting will be on July 9, 2025, from 10am to 11am (ET).
This meeting will be a hybrid of virtual and in person in the Adams Conference Room, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20408. We will send instructions on how to access the meeting to those who register according to the instructions below.
Heather Harris Pagán, ISOO Senior Program Analyst, at
This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3. The Committee will discuss matters relating to the classified national security information program for state, local, tribal, and private sector entities.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing public notice each week for four consecutive weeks of receipt and availability of an application for a construction permit (CP) from Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for the Clinch River Nuclear Site in Roane County, Tennessee. The application, proposing to construct a GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 reactor, was received in two parts on April 25 and May 20, 2025. This notice is being provided to make the public and other stakeholders aware that the CP application is available for inspection.
June 17, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0146 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Allen Fetter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8556; email:
In response to a letter from TVA dated August 17, 2023 (NNP-23-003, ADAMS Accession No. ML23229A569), the Commission on November 21, 2023 granted an exemption from certain requirements of paragraph 2.101(a)(5) of title 10 of the
Tennessee Valley Authority filed with the NRC, pursuant to 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” both parts of the application for a construction permit to construct a GEH BWRX-300 reactor at the Clinch River Nuclear Site in Roane County, Tennessee, on April 28, 2025 (NNP-25-003, ADAMS Accession No. ML25118A209), and May 20, 2025, (NPP-25-004, ADAMS Package Accession No. ML25140A062), respectively. These notices are being provided in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.43(a)(3).
The NRC staff is currently undertaking its acceptance review of both parts of the application. If both parts of the application are accepted for docketing, a subsequent
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is providing notice of the deadline to file a notice of intervention and establishing additional discovery procedures.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The deadline to file a notice of intervention pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.142 is August 1, 2025.
Pursuant to Order No. 8827, the Presiding Officer shall conduct limited discovery for the purpose of determining disputed issues of fact in this case.
1. The deadline to file a notice of intervention pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.142 is August 1, 2025.
2. The parties and counsel shall follow the procedural schedule and case management procedures established by this Presiding Officer's Ruling.
3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this ruling (or abstract thereof) in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is acknowledging a recent Postal Service filing concerning material changes to Mail Classification Schedule product descriptions within First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, and Periodicals. This document invites public comment on the advance review portion of the Postal Service's filing and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On June 11, 2025, the Postal Service filed a proposal pursuant to 39 CFR 3040.180 to make material changes to Mail Classification Schedule (MCS) product descriptions within First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, and Periodicals.
The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2025-1483 to consider matters raised by the MCS Proposal and Docket No. RM2025-11 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. Because the instant dockets involve related issues, the Commission consolidates them.
1. The Commission established Docket No. MC2025-1483 to consider matters raised by the United States Postal Service Proposal to Modify the Product Descriptions of First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, and Periodicals, filed June 11, 2025.
2. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2025-11 to consider matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service to Initiate a Proceeding to Change Analytical Principles, filed June 11, 2025.
3. The Commission consolidates Docket Nos. MC2025-1483 and RM2025-11.
4. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than July 11, 2025.
5. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Katalin Clendenin to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
6. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the 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
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 2618, Risk Settings and Trading Risk Metrics, 2621, Clearly Erroneous Executions, 2626, Retail Order Attribution Program, and 2900, Unlisted Trading Privileges, to make
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, MIAX Pearl included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. MIAX Pearl has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the hierarchical headings in Exchange Rule 2618 as follows: subparagraphs (a)(1)(A)-(H) will be renumbered as (a)(1)(i)-(viii); subparagraphs (a)(2)(A)-(F) will be renumbered as (a)(2)(i)-(vi); subparagraphs (a)(3)(A)-(B) will be renumbered as (a)(3)(i)-(ii); subparagraphs (a)(7)(A)-(B) will be renumbered as (a)(7)(i)-(ii); subparagraphs (b)(1)(A)-(F) will be renumbered as (b)(1)(i)-(vi); subparagraphs (b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii) will be renumbered as (b)(1)(i)(A)-(B); and subparagraphs (b)(1)(B)(i)-(iii) will be renumbered as (b)(1)(ii)(A)-(C).
The Exchange proposes to amend the hierarchical headings in Exchange Rule 2621 as follows: subparagraphs (c)(1)(A)-(C) will be renumbered as (c)(1)(i)-(iii); subparagraphs (c)(2)(A)-(D) will be renumbered as (c)(2)(i)-(iv); subparagraphs (c)(2)(D)(i)-(ii) will be renumbered as (c)(2)(iv)(A)-(B); and subparagraphs (e)(2)(A)-(F) will be renumbered as (e)(2)(i)-(vi).
The Exchange proposes to amend the hierarchical headings in Exchange Rule 2626 as follows: subparagraphs (b)(2)(A)-(C) will be renumbered as (b)(2)(i)-(iii).
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed renumbered subparagraph (b)(1) of Exchange Rule 2618 to replace certain internal cross references to other subparagraphs of Exchange Rule 2618 in light of the hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross references contained in Exchange Rule 2618(b)(1) that are to subparagraphs (E) and (F), to now be to subparagraphs (v) and (vi), respectively. Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2618(b)(1) will provide as follows:
(1) Trading Collar. The Trading Collar prevents incoming orders, including those marked ISO, from executing at a price outside the Trading Collar price range,
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed renumbered subparagraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of Exchange Rule 2618 to replace an internal cross reference to another subparagraph of Exchange Rule 2618 in light of the hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross reference contained in Exchange Rule 2618(b)(1)(i)(A) that is to subparagraph (B)(iii), to now be to subparagraph (ii)(C). Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2618(b)(1)(i)(A) will provide as follows:
(A) the price listed under paragraph (ii)(C) below is to be applied and a regulatory halt has been declared by the primary listing market during that trading day;
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed renumbered subparagraph (b)(1)(iv) of Exchange Rule 2618 to replace an internal cross reference to another subparagraph of Exchange Rule 2618 in light of the hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross reference contained in Exchange Rule 2618(b)(1)(iv) that is to subparagraph (A), to now be to subparagraph (i). Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2618(b)(1)(iv) will provide as follows:
(iv) The Exchange calculates the Trading Collar price range for a security by applying the Numerical Guideline and reference price (see table below) to the Trading Collar Reference Price, as defined in paragraph (i) above. The result is added to the Trading Collar Reference Price to determine the Trading Collar Price for buy orders, while the result is subtracted from the Trading Collar Reference Price to determine the Trading Collar Price for sell orders. The Trading Collar Price for an order to buy (sell) that is not in the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for the security, as defined in Exchange Rule 2612, will be rounded down (up) to the nearest price at the applicable MPV. The appropriate Trading Collar Price is assigned to all orders upon entry. The Trading Collar Price is not enforced throughout the life of the order nor updated once the order is resting on the MIAX Pearl Equities Book.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed renumbered subparagraph (b)(1)(vi) of Exchange Rule 2618 to replace certain internal cross references to other subparagraphs of Exchange Rule 2618 in light of the hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross references contained in Exchange Rule 2618(b)(1)(vi) that are to subparagraphs (E) and (F), to now be to subparagraphs (v) and (vi), respectively. Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2618(b)(1)(vi) will provide as follows:
(vi) An Equity Member may select a dollar value lower, higher, or equal to the specified percentages and dollar value described under paragraph (v) on an order by order basis. In such case, the dollar value selected by the Equity Member will override the dollar value and specific percentages set forth under paragraph (v) above. This paragraph (vi) does not apply to orders that are eligible for the Opening Process under Exchange Rule 2615. In such case, the specified percentages and dollar value described under paragraph (v) will be applied.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (c)(2) of Exchange Rule 2621 to replace an internal cross reference to another subparagraph of Exchange Rule 2621 in light of the proposed hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross reference contained in Exchange Rule 2621(c)(2), that is to subparagraph (c)(1)(A), to now be to proposed renumbered subparagraph (c)(1)(i). Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2621(c)(2) will provide as follows:
(2) Numerical Guidelines. Review of transactions occurring during the Early Trading Session, Late Trading Session, or eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i).
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed renumbered subparagraph (c)(2)(i) of Exchange Rule 2621 to replace internal cross references to other subparagraphs of Exchange Rule 2621 in light of the proposed hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross references contained in Exchange Rule 2621(c)(2)(i), that are to subparagraphs (c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(B), to now be to proposed renumbered subparagraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2)(ii). Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2621(c)(2)(i) will provide as follows:
(i) Subject to the additional factors described in paragraph (c)(2) below, a transaction occurring during the Early Trading Session, Late Trading Session, or eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i), shall be found to be clearly erroneous if the price of the transaction to buy (sell) that is the subject of the complaint is greater than (less than) the Reference Price by an amount that equals or exceeds the Numerical Guidelines set forth below.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed renumbered subparagraph (c)(2)(ii) of Exchange Rule 2621 to replace an internal cross reference to another subparagraph of Exchange Rule 2621 in light of the proposed hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross reference contained in Exchange Rule 2621(c)(2)(ii), that is to subparagraph (c)(1)(A), to now be to proposed renumbered subparagraph (c)(1)(i). Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2621(c)(2)(ii) will provide as follows:
(ii) Multi-Stock Events Involving Twenty or More Securities. Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or more securities may be reviewable as clearly erroneous if they occur during the Early Trading Session, Late Trading Session, or are eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i). During Multi-Stock Events, the number of affected transactions may be such that immediate finality is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market and to protect investors and the public interest. In such circumstances, the Exchange may use a Reference Price other than consolidated last sale. To ensure consistent application across market centers when this paragraph is invoked, the Exchange will promptly coordinate with the other market centers to determine the appropriate review period, which may be greater than the period of five minutes or less that triggered application of this paragraph, as well as select one or more specific points in time prior to the transactions in question and use transaction prices at or immediately prior to the one or more specific points in time selected as the Reference Price. The Exchange will nullify as clearly erroneous all transactions that are at prices equal to or greater than 30% away from the Reference Price in each affected security during the review period selected by the Exchange and other markets consistent with this paragraph.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed renumbered subparagraph (c)(2)(iii) of Exchange Rule 2621 to replace an internal cross reference to another subparagraph of Exchange Rule 2621 in light of the proposed hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross reference contained in Exchange Rule 2621(c)(2)(iii), that is to subparagraph (c)(1)(A), to now be to proposed renumbered subparagraph (c)(1)(i). Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2621 (c)(2)(iii) will provide as follows:
(iii) Additional Factors. Except in the context of a Multi-Stock Event involving five or more securities, an Official may also consider additional factors to determine whether an execution is clearly erroneous, provided the execution occurs during the Early Trading Session, Late Trading Session, or is eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i). Such additional factors include but are not limited to, system malfunctions or disruptions, volume and volatility for the security, derivative securities products that correspond to greater than 100% in the direction of a tracking index, news released for the security, whether trading in the security was recently halted/resumed, whether the security is an initial public offering, whether the security was subject to a stock-split, reorganization, or other corporate action, overall market conditions, Early Trading Session, Late Trading Session executions, validity of the consolidated tape trades and quotes, consideration of primary market indications, and executions inconsistent with the trading pattern in the stock. Each additional factor shall be considered with a view toward maintaining a fair and orderly market and the protection of investors and the public interest.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed renumbered subparagraph (c)(2)(iv) of Exchange Rule 2621 to replace an internal cross reference to another subparagraph of Exchange Rule 2621 in light of the proposed hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross reference contained in Exchange Rule 2621(c)(2)(iv), that is to subparagraph (c)(1)(A), to now be to proposed renumbered subparagraph (c)(1)(i). Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2621(c)(2)(iv) will provide as follows:
(iv) Outlier Transactions. In the case of an Outlier Transaction during the Early Trading Session, Late Trading Session, or that is eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i), an Official may, in his or her sole discretion, and on a case-by-case basis, consider requests received pursuant to paragraph (b) of this Exchange Rule after thirty (30) minutes, but not longer than sixty (60) minutes after the transaction in question, depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding such request.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed renumbered
(B) If the execution price of the security in question is not within the Outlier Transaction parameters set forth in paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(A) of this Exchange Rule but breaches the 52-week high or 52-week low, the Exchange may consider Additional Factors as outlined in paragraph (c)(2)(iii), in determining if the transaction qualifies for further review or if the Exchange shall decline to act.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (d)(1) of Exchange Rule 2621 to replace an internal cross reference to another subparagraph of Exchange Rule 2621 in light of the hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross reference contained in Exchange Rule 2621(d)(1) that is to subparagraph (c)(2)(B) to now be to subparagraph (c)(2)(ii). Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2621(d)(1) will provide as follows:
(1) in the case of Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or more securities, as described in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) above;
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (d)(2) of Exchange Rule 2621 to replace certain internal cross references to other subparagraphs of Exchange Rule 2621 in light of the hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross references contained in Exchange Rule 2621(d)(2) that are to subparagraphs (c)(1)(C), (c)(1)(C)(1), and (c)(1)(C)(2), to now be to subparagraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iii)(A), and (c)(1)(iii)(B), respectively. Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2621(d)(2) will provide as follows:
(2) in the case of an erroneous Reference Price, as described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) above. In the case of (c)(1)(iii)(A), the Exchange would consider a number of factors to determine a new Reference Price that is based on the theoretical value of the security, including but not limited to, the offering price of the new issue, the ratio of the stock split applied to the prior day's closing price, the theoretical price derived from the numerical terms of the corporate action transaction such as the exchange ratio and spin-off terms, and for an OTC up-listing, the price of the security as provided in the prior day's FINRA Trade Dissemination Service final closing report. In the case of (c)(1)(iii)(B), the Reference Price will be the last effective Price Band that was in a limit state before the Trading Pause; or
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (d)(3) of Exchange Rule 2621 to replace an internal cross reference to another subparagraph of Exchange Rule 2621 in light of the hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross reference contained in Exchange Rule 2621(d)(3) that is to subparagraph (c)(1)(A) to now be to subparagraph (c)(1)(i). Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2621(d)(3) will provide as follows:
(3) in other circumstances, such as, for example, relevant news impacting a security or securities, periods of extreme market volatility, sustained illiquidity, or widespread system issues, where use of a different Reference Price is necessary for the maintenance of a fair and orderly market and the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that such circumstances occurred during the Early Trading Session or Late Trading Session or the execution(s) are eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i).
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (g) of Exchange Rule 2621 to replace an internal cross reference to another subparagraph of Exchange Rule 2621 in light of the hierarchical heading changes described above. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross reference contained in Exchange Rule 2621(g) that is to subparagraph (c)(1)(B) to now be to subparagraph (c)(1)(ii). Accordingly, with all the proposed changes, Exchange Rule 2621(g) will provide as follows:
(g) Transactions Occurring Outside of LULD Plan Price Bands. If as a result of an Exchange technology or systems issue any transaction occurs outside of the applicable Price Bands disseminated pursuant to the LULD Plan, an Officer of the Exchange or senior level employee designee, acting on his or her own motion or at the request of a third party, shall review and declare any such trades null and void. Absent extraordinary circumstances, any such action of the Officer of the Exchange or other senior level employee designee shall be taken in a timely fashion, generally within thirty (30) minutes of the detection of the erroneous transaction. When extraordinary circumstances exist, any such action of the Officer of the Exchange or other senior level employee designee must be taken by no later than the start of Regular Trading Hours on the trading day following the date on which the execution(s) under review occurred. Each Member involved in the transaction shall be notified as soon as practicable by the Exchange, and the party aggrieved by the action may appeal such action in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (e)(2) above. In the event that a single plan processor experiences a technology or systems issue that prevents the dissemination of Price Bands, the Exchange will make the determination of whether to nullify transactions based on paragraph (c)(1)(ii) above.
The Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (b) of Exchange Rule 2900 to update a cross reference to the definition of “UTP Exchange Traded Product,”
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes also further the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. In particular, they are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes the proposed changes promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule changes will provide greater clarity to Equity Members and the public regarding the Exchange's Rules by providing consistency within the Exchange's Rulebook. It is in the public interest for the Exchange's Rules to be accurate and concise so as to eliminate the potential for confusion.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intra-market competition as there is no functional change to the Exchange's System
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 4, Complex Order Fees, to increase a complex order Market Maker
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed rule change to be operative on June 2, 2025.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
MRX proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 4, Complex Order Fees, to increase a complex order Market Maker fee discount in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols, when the Market Maker trades against Priority Customer orders that originate from an Affiliated Member or an Affiliated Entity.
As set forth in Options 7, Section 4, the Exchange presently assesses all market participants, except Priority Customers, a $0.35 per contract fee for Penny Symbol complex order transactions and a $0.85 per contract fee for Non-Penny Symbol complex order transactions.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend the fee discount for Market Makers that trade against Priority Customer complex orders that originate from an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity from $0.00 to $0.10 per contract. While the Exchange's proposal reduces the discount to Market Makers that trade against Priority Customer complex orders that originate from an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity, the Exchange believes the proposed $0.10 per contract discount will continue to incentivize Market Makers, Affiliated Members, and/or Affiliated Entities to direct additional Priority Customer order flow to MRX.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed changes are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of eighteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the complex order fee discount for Market Makers that trade against Priority Customer complex orders that originate from an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity from $0.00 to $0.10 per contract is reasonable because while the Exchange proposes to reduce the fee discount to Market Makers that trade against Priority Customer complex orders that originate from an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity, the Exchange believes the discount will continue to incentivize Market Makers, Affiliated Members, and/or Affiliated Entities to direct additional Priority Customer order flow to MRX. Priority Customer order flow is unique in that it attracts valuable liquidity from Market Makers to the market, which in turn benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities. This increased activity from all market participants attracts Market Makers and in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. Market Makers will continue to benefit from a reduced fee, and other market participants will benefit because they will have an opportunity to trade with the order flow that Marker Makers, their Affiliated Member and/or Appointed Member bring to MRX. When a Priority Customer order is submitted to MRX, a Market Maker that wishes to interact with that order flow does not know whether that order originated from one of its Affiliated Members and/or Appointed Members. The Exchange believes this incentive will cause Market Makers to aggressively pursue order flow in order to receive the benefit of the reduced fee when the Market Maker executes a complex order contra a Priority Customer. Discounting fees in this manner rewards Market Makers that bring more order flow to the Exchange. This is the case because a Market Maker through its Affiliated Member or its Appointed Member directing additional order flow would increase the chances of a Market Maker qualifying for a reduced complex order fee of $0.10 (
The Exchange's proposal to amend the complex order fee discount for Market Makers that trade against Priority Customer complex orders that originate from an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity from $0.00 to $0.10 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the discounted fee will apply uniformly to Market Makers that meet the criteria for the fee discount. With respect to the reduced fee offered to Market Makers, the Exchange notes that Priority Customers do not pay a complex order fee. Other market participants, such as a Non-Nasdaq MRX Market Maker (FarMM),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets, and will offer market participants with another choice of venue to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the complex order fee discount for Market Makers that trade against Priority Customer complex orders that originate from an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity from $0.00 to $0.10 per contract does not impose an undue burden on competition because the discounted fee will apply uniformly to Market Makers that meet the criteria for the fee discount. With respect to the reduced fee offered to Market Makers, the Exchange notes that Priority Customers do not pay a complex order fee. Other market participants, such as a Non-Nasdaq MRX Market Maker (FarMM), a Firm Proprietary, a Broker-
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 302.00 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (“Manual”) to exempt closed-end funds registered under the 1940 Act from the requirement to hold annual shareholder meetings. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Closed-end funds (“CEFs”) are a category of investment companies that are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”)
The Exchange notes that, in addition to the listing under Section 102.04A of the Manual of CEFs registered under the 1940 Act, the Exchange also lists under Section 102.04B of the Manual business development companies (“BDCs”). A BDC is a closed-end management investment company that is registered under the Exchange Act and that has filed an election to be treated as a business development company under the 1940 Act. The Exchange does not at this time propose to provide an exemption from the annual meeting requirement of Section 302.00 to BDCs.
The Exchange notes that there are significant differences between CEFs and listed operating companies that justify exempting CEFs from the Exchange's annual meeting requirement. In particular, the Exchange notes that the 1940 Act includes specific requirements with respect to the election of directors by CEF shareholders, while there is no such requirement under federal law for listed operating companies. Specifically, Section 16(a) of the 1940 Act
No person shall serve as a director of a registered investment company unless elected to that office by the holders of the outstanding voting securities of such company, at an annual or a special meeting duly called for that purpose; except that vacancies occurring between such meetings may be filled in any otherwise legal manner if immediately after filling any such vacancy at least two-thirds of the directors then holding office shall have been elected to such office by the holders of the outstanding voting securities of the company at such an annual or special meeting. In the event that at any time less than a majority of the directors of such company holding office at that time were so elected by the holders of the outstanding voting securities, the board of directors or proper officer of such company shall forthwith cause to be held as promptly as possible and in any event within sixty days a meeting of such holders for the purpose of electing directors to fill any existing vacancies in the board of directors unless the Commission shall by order extend such period. The foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to members of an advisory board.
The Exchange also notes that the 1940 Act requires that directors who are not “interested persons”
In addition to the director election provisions described above, the 1940 Act requires that a majority of directors who are not 1940 Act Interested Persons approve significant actions, such as approval of the investment advisory agreement between a CEF and its investment advisor.
There are also a number of material matters with respect to which the 1940 Act requires registered investment companies, including CEFs, to obtain shareholder approval. These matters include: a new investment management agreement or a material amendment to an investment management agreement;
In light of the above-described significant statutory protections under the 1940 Act provided to the shareholders of CEFs, for which there are no parallel legal protections for the shareholders of public operating companies, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to exempt CEFs from the annual shareholder meeting requirements of Section 302.00 of the Manual.
The Exchange notes that all of the categories of investment companies for which the Exchange has listing standards other than CEFs are already explicitly exempt from the annual shareholder meeting requirement of Section 302.00 of the Manual. In the Prior Proposal OIP, the Commission indicated that the structural differences between exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), which are exempt from the Exchange's annual meeting requirement, and CEFs could potentially create unique investor protection issues for CEF shareholders if their annual meeting rights were eliminated—concerns that might not exist for ETF shareholders.
The Exchange believes that the argument that retail investors seek to exit their investment at NAV incorrectly assumes that investors purchased shares of a CEF with that expectation. This assumption is contradicted by actual investor behavior, as many investors deliberately purchase listed CEFs on the secondary market when they are trading at a discount to NAV.
Importantly, to the extent there are reasons that a CEF is trading at a discount for non-market driven reasons Congress delineated a function in the 1940 Act to oversee discount management: Independent directors of the CEF. Independent Directors monitor a CEF 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 the Investment Company Institute (“ICI”), retail shareholders show minimal participation in annual meetings.
Despite the benefits CEFs 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 newly-listed CEFs 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.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed exemption of newly-listed CEFs from the annual shareholder meeting requirement of Section 302.00 of the Manual is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because of the provisions in the 1940 Act providing significant protection of CEF shareholders, including by requiring: (i) the election of directors by the CEF's shareholders when the number of 1940 Act Interested Persons on the board exceed specified levels; (ii) the approval of certain specified material matters by a majority of the directors who are not 1940 Act Interested Persons; and (ii) the approval of certain specified material matters by the shareholders. In addition, newly-listed CEFs would retain the flexibility to voluntarily incorporate annual meeting provisions into their organizational bylaws should they elect to do so.
The Exchange believes that by applying the proposed exemption exclusively to newly-listed CEFs, the proposal ensures no existing shareholders lose any voting privileges they currently possess. This forward-looking approach means current investors in existing CEFs maintain all their rights, while future investors will enter new funds with full knowledge of the governance structure, enabling informed investment decisions.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose a burden on either intramarket or intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to permit newly-listed CEFs to rely on the shareholder voting requirements under the 1940 Act rather than complying with the annual meeting requirement of Section 302.00 of the Manual. As all similarly situated CEFs listed on the NYSE would be treated the same under the proposed amended rule, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal would impose any burden on intramarket competition. Any other market that lists CEFs could seek to amend its own annual meeting requirements applicable to CEFs and, as such, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal places any undue burden on intermarket competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Vista Credit Strategic Lending Corp., Vista Credit BDC Management, L.P., Vista Credit CLO Management LLC, Vista Credit Partners, L.P., and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Schedule A to the application.
The application was filed on May 1, 2025, and amended on June 10, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, Kris Easter Guidroz, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended application, dated June 10, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system.
The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 modify its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to modify the required criteria for one of its Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tiers for executions priced at or above $1.00 to introduce an alternative means of qualifying for the rebate tier. Notably, IEX is not proposing to change the amounts of any rebates or fees.
As reflected in the Transaction Fees section of the Fee Schedule, IEX currently offers Members the following seven Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate tiers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IEX is proposing to modify the required criteria for qualifying for Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tier 6 (“Tier 6”), so that Members will have two ways in which they could qualify for Tier 6: (1) the current method, in which a Member qualifies for the rebate tier by adding at least 20,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity and less than 30,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity; or (2) the proposed new method, in which a Member would qualify for the rebate tier by trading at least 20,000,000 non-displayed ADV, irrespective of their Added Displayed Liquidity. In effect, this proposed additional means of qualifying for Tier 6 makes that tier a higher volume version of Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tier 3, which allows Members to qualify for that tier either: (1) by adding at least 3,000,000 and less than 10,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity or (2) by trading at least 10,000,000 non-displayed ADV, irrespective of their Added Displayed Liquidity.
Accordingly, IEX proposes to update its Fee Schedule to make two revisions to reflect the proposed changes to Tier 6. First, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule's Base Rates table to update the description and fees associated with Base Fee Code ML (“Add displayed liquidity”). As amended, the Base Rates table will continue to list seven base rates for Fee Code ML, but the description of the base rate paid for a Member that adds at least 20,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity and less than 30,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity will state that a Member also can qualify for that base rate by trading at least 20,000,000 non-displayed ADV. Similarly, IEX proposes to update the description of Tier 6 in Footnote 4 to the Transaction Fees section. As proposed, Footnote 4 will be amended to reflect that a Member can qualify for Tier 6 either by adding at least 20,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity and less than 30,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity, or by trading at least 20,000,000 non-displayed ADV.
IEX notes that this model of offering volume-based rebates is consistent with the rebates offered by competitor exchanges.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. IEX has concluded that, in the context of current regulatory requirements governing access fees and rebates, it is able to more effectively compete with other exchanges for order flow by offering Members an additional means of qualifying for higher rebate incentives. Based upon informal discussions with market participants, IEX believes that Members and other market participants may be more willing to send displayed orders to IEX if the proposed fee change is adopted.
Accordingly, IEX has designed the proposed change to Tier 6 to allow Members an additional way to qualify for that particular incentive rebate tier. As noted in the Purpose section, the proposed changes to Tier 6 are an expansion of the current criteria to qualify for Displayed Liquidity Adding
With this proposed change, IEX's rebates are still designed to attract and incentivize displayed orders as well as order flow seeking to trade with such displayed orders. Moreover, increases in displayed liquidity would contribute to the public price discovery process which would benefit all market participants and protect investors and the public interest.
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Within that context, the proposed additional criteria for qualifying for Tier 6 is designed to keep IEX's displayed trading prices competitive with those of other exchanges. The proposed additional criteria for qualifying for Tier 6 is comparable to the criteria applied by competing exchanges, and thus IEX does not believe that the proposal raises any new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission in the context of other exchanges' fees.
Finally, to the extent this proposed fee change is successful in incentivizing the entry and execution of displayed orders on IEX, such greater liquidity will benefit all market participants by increasing price discovery and price formation as well as market quality and execution opportunities. And, as discussed above, IEX does not believe that any aspect of this proposal raises new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in 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 intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if fee schedules at other venues are viewed as more favorable. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the degree to which IEX fees could impose any burden on competition is extremely limited and does not believe that such fees would burden competition between Members or competing venues. Moreover, as noted in the Statutory Basis section, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes raise any new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission.
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, while different rebates are assessed on Members, these rebate tiers are not based on the type of Member entering the orders that match, but rather on the Member's own trading activity. Further, the proposed fee changes continue to be intended to encourage market participants to bring increased order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to adopt fees for new logical ports in connection with a new connectivity offering on its equity options platform. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to adopt fees for Unitized Logical Ports, a new connectivity offering for its equity options platform (“BZX Options”) and adopt new Average Daily Quote and Average Daily Order fees.
By way of background, Exchange Members may interface with the Exchange's Trading System by utilizing either the Financial Information Exchange (“FIX”) protocol or the Binary Order Entry (“BOE”) protocol. The Exchange further offers a variety of logical ports,
Historically, all order handlers connect to all matching engines. That is, under the BOEv2 and FIX protocols,
The Exchange recently implemented a new architecture and protocol which includes, among other things, a single gateway per matching engine (“unitized layer”), which renders the above-described natural variance of order handler processing irrelevant for Members that connect to the unitized order handler.
The Exchange proposes to establish fees for the new Unitized Logical Ports, which can be purchased on an individual basis (
The proposed fees for Unitized Logical Port Sets are progressive. For example, if a User were to purchase 11 BOE Unitized Logical Port Sets, it will be charged a total of $32,000 per month ($2,500 * 2 + $3,000 * 9). As is the case today for existing logical ports, the monthly fees are assessed and applied in their entirety and are not prorated. The Exchange notes the current standard fees assessed for existing logical ports will remain applicable and unchanged.
Since the Exchange has a finite amount of capacity, it also proposes to prescribe a maximum limit on the number of Unitized Logical Ports that may be purchased and used on a per firm, per Matching Unit basis. The purpose of establishing these limits is to manage the allotment of Unitized Logical Ports in a fair and reasonable manner while preventing the Exchange from being required to expend large amounts of resources in order to provide an unlimited capacity to its matching engines. The Exchange previously proposed to provide that the two structures (
The Exchange also proposes to adopt Average Daily Order (“ADO”) and Average Daily Quote (“ADQ”) fees. “ADO” represents the total number of orders for the month, divided by the number of trading days. “ADQ” represents the total number of quotes for the month, divided by the number of trading days. When measuring a Member's ADO and ADQ, orders, quotes, cancel/replace modify orders, and quote updates which submit a bid or offer and do not include cancels, are included. Further ADO and ADQ will include orders and quotes submitted by a Member from all logical port types (
As an example, a Member that has 510,000,000 ADQ would subsequently have 25,500 “ADQ increments” (510,000,000 ADQ/20,000 ADQ increments). While 12,500 of the 25,500 ADQ increments are free within Tier 1, 12,500 of the ADQ increments would be fee liable at $0.050 within Tier 2, while the remaining 500 ADQ increments would be fee liable at $.075 within Tier 3, resulting in a total ADQ fee of $662.50 for that month.
The Exchange notes that market participants with incrementally higher ADO or ADQ have the potential residual effect of exhausting system resources, bandwidth, and capacity. Higher ADO or ADQ may therefore, in turn, create latency and impact other Members' ability to receive timely executions. The proposed fee structure has multiple thresholds, and the proposed fees are incrementally greater at higher ADO and ADQ rates because the potential impact on exchange systems, bandwidth and capacity becomes greater with increased ADO and ADQ rates. As noted above, the proposal contemplates that a Member would have to exceed the high ADO rate of 2,000,000 and a Market Maker would have to exceed the high ADQ rate of 250,000,000 before that market participant would be charged a fee under the proposed respective tiers. The Exchange believes that it is in the interests of all Members and market participants who access the Exchange to not allow other market participants to exhaust System resources, but to encourage efficient usage of network capacity. The Exchange also believes this proposal (and in particular the proposed fee amounts associated with higher ADO and ADQ) will reduce the incentive for market participants to
The Exchange also represents that the proposed fees are not intended to raise revenue; rather, as noted above, it is intended to encourage efficient behavior so that market participants do not exhaust System resources. Moreover, the Exchange provides Members with daily reports, free of charge, which details their order and trade activity in order for those firms to be fully aware of all order and trade activity they (and their affiliates) are sending to the Exchange. This will allow Members to monitor their behavior and determine whether it is approaching any of the ADO or ADQ thresholds that trigger the proposed fees.
The Exchange lastly notes that other exchanges have adopted various fee programs that assess incrementally higher fees to Members that have incrementally higher order and/or quoting trading activity for similar reasons.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable because Unitized Logical Ports provide an optional, valuable service in that the ports are intended to create a more consistent, deterministic experience for messages once received within the Exchange's System under the recently adopted unitized BOEv3 architecture. As discussed above, the new architecture (and thereby the new Unitized Logical Ports) was designed to create a more consistent, deterministic experience for messages once received within the Exchange's System, which the Exchange believes improves the overall access experience on the Exchange and will enable future system enhancements. As noted, the BOEv3 protocol and architecture, along with the three new corresponding Unitized Logical Ports, are intended to reduce the natural variance of order handler processing times for messages, and as a result reduce the potential resulting “reordering” of messages when they are sent from order handlers to matching engines. The adoption of the unitized BOEv3 structure (including the corresponding new Unitized Ports) was a technical solution that is intended to reduce the potential of this reordering and increase determinism.
Furthermore, the Exchange also notes that it believes the proposed fees are similar to or less than fees assessed by other exchanges, for analogous connections as explained in further detail below.
The Exchange (market share of 4.25%) notes that the proposed Unitized Purge Port fee of $400 to connect to a matching engine is lower than fees charged by at least two other exchanges with comparable (indeed, even lower) market share, particularly by MIAX Emerald (4.05% market share) and MIAX Pearl (2.8% market share) The Exchange does note that both MIAX Emerald and MIAX Pearl offer two purge ports for a matching engine connection at a cost of $600,
Furthermore, comparing the costs of purchasing Purge Ports to connect to all matching engines, the Exchange still comes in at a lower cost than MIAX Pearl or MIAX Emerald. Connecting to all matching engines on MIAX Emerald or MIAX Pearl would cost $7,200, while connecting to all matching engines on BZX Options costs $2,500.
While not as closely comparable, MIAX Emerald and MIAX Pearl both offer Full Service MEI Ports (analogous to the Exchange's Bulk Port offering) and Limited Service MEI Ports (analogous to the Exchange's BOE Port offering) that are based on the lesser of a participant's per class basis or percentage of total national average daily volume measurement; for each matching engine a participant connects to (based on their activity), they receive two Full Service MEI Ports and four Limited Service MEI Ports.
While the Exchange is priced higher in these specific examples, it again believes the value comes from the ability to connect to additional matching engines as opposed to the quantity of ports itself and participants of the Exchange are able to determine their number of desired ports as opposed to having a set package based on their Exchange activity. For example, a participant of BZX Options can have similar matching engine connectivity to the lowest tier of MIAX Emerald or MIAX Pearl by connecting to three matching engines (using the same presumed number as above) by purchasing three Bulk Ports for a cost of $1,650 per month, substantially less than the fixed costs of $5,000 per month
Lastly, the Exchange notes that MIAX's offering is only for Market makers, and pricing in turn (and for that matter, access), is dictated by the classes a Market Maker is quoting in. In contrast, the Exchange allows any participant who believes this offering may be beneficial for its business to utilize it. Further, the Exchange grants all Members the flexibility to select their own applicable structure of matching engine connectivity—whether that be through purchasing ports that access the convenience layer or the unitized layer and can further choose to purchase Unitized Logical Ports in sets or by individual ports (dependent on the firms matching engine needs, which may be based on products it trades, strategies, or other business needs). The Exchange's offering is both more widely available and allows for flexibility for its Members in contrast to MIAX's strict matching engine connectivity based on classes a Market Maker is quoting in and its rigid fee structure.
The Exchange also emphasizes that the use of the Unitized Logical Ports is not necessary for trading on the Exchange and, as noted above, is entirely optional. In fact, approximately 57% of Members still maintain at least one convenience layer port (FIX or BOEv3), either in addition to or in lieu of Unitized Ports. Users can also continue to access the Exchange through existing logical port offerings at existing rates. It is a Member's specific business needs that will drive its decision whether to use Unitized Logical Ports in lieu of, or in addition to, existing logical ports (or, as emphasized, not use them at all). If a User finds little benefit in having these ports based on its business model and trading strategies, or determines the Unitized Logical ports are not cost-efficient for its needs, or does not provide sufficient value to the firm, such User may continue connecting to the Exchange in the manner it does today, unchanged. Moreover, the Exchange believes that providing Members the option of purchasing Unitized Logical Ports individually or in sets provides Members further flexibility and an opportunity for cost savings for those Members that wish to only trade a subset of classes. The Exchange has seen firms take advantage of individually priced Unitized Logical Ports when their needs do not require connectivity to all matching engines—further allowing its Members to pay reduced fees relative to a Unitized Logical Port set.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that undertaking a technological innovation, such as offering a new connectivity option for Members (of which, 57% still utilize at least one FIX or BOEv3 Port through the convenience layer), requires costs and resource allocation. In fact, as the Exchange previously noted, such innovation has improved the infrastructure for all Members of the Exchange. Such innovation is a part of what allows the Exchange to continue to provide access to markets in times of heightened volatility with zero downtime. The new Chair of the Securities Exchange Commission, Paul Atkins, even recently heighted the importance of innovation by stating “. . . we are getting back to our roots of promoting, rather than stifling, innovation. The markets innovate, and the SEC should not be in the business of telling them to stand still.”
The Exchange also believes that the proposed Unitized Logical Port fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they continue to be assessed uniformly to similarly situated users in that all Users who choose to purchase Unitized Logical Ports will be subject to the same proposed tiered fee schedule. Moreover, Members purchasing Unitized Logical Ports will only do so if they find a benefit and sufficient value in such ports as, all Members can otherwise continue to use the preexisting logical connectivity options. As such, Members can choose whether or not to purchase Unitized Logical Ports based on their respective business needs.
The proposed ascending tier structure for Unitized Logical Port Sets is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it's designed to encourage market participants to be efficient with their respective Unitized Logical Port usage. It also is designed so that Members that use a higher allotment of the Exchange's system resources pay higher rates, rather than placing that burden on market participants that have more modest needs. The Exchange believes the proposed ascending fee structure is therefore another appropriate means, in conjunction with an established Unitized Logical Port limit, to manage this finite resource (system capacity) and ensure its apportioned fairly. In contrast, MIAX's structure limits that offering to a specific subset of participants, Market Makers, and allocates its ports based on quoting. In contrast, the Exchange and its participants to utilize this product at their required level of consumption. Furthermore, the Exchange already assesses higher fees to those that consume more Exchange resources for the existing non-Unitized Bulk Ports.
The Exchange believes the proposed ADO and ADQ fees are reasonable as Members that do not exceed the high thresholds of 2,000,000 ADO and 250,000,000 ADQ will not be charged any fee under the proposed tiers. The Exchange notes that in establishing the proposed thresholds, it evaluated average ADO and ADQ rates over several months and the thresholds were designed to protect the Exchange's Matching Engines from being adversely impacted from sustained and excessive orders/quotes throughout the course of a given month. Further, the Exchange considered the highest levels of ADO and ADQ rates amongst firms and from there, reviewed what would be considered an unreasonable threshold even at the highest levels. The ADQ
The Exchange believes adopting the proposed ADO and ADQ fees are reasonable as unfettered usage of System capacity and network resource consumption can have a detrimental effect on all market participants who access and use the Exchange. As discussed above, high ADO and ADQ rates may adversely impact system resources, bandwidth, and capacity which may, in turn, create latency and impact other Members' ability to receive timely executions. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are therefore reasonable as they are designed to focus on activity that is truly disproportionate while fairly allocating costs.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed ADO and ADQ fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will be assessed uniformly to similarly situated users in that all Members that exceed the thresholds in connection with ADO and ADQ will be assessed the proposed ADO and ADQ rates. Regarding ADO an ADQ, no market participant is assessed any fees unless it exceeds the proposed thresholds. As noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed ADO and ADQ thresholds (
The Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess incrementally higher fees to Members that have higher ADO and ADQ rates because the potential impact on exchange systems, bandwidth and capacity becomes greater with increased ADO and ADQ. The Exchange also believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to aggregate Members trading activity with any affiliated Member sharing at least 75% common ownership in order to prevent members from shifting their order flow or quoting activity to other affiliates in order to circumvent the ADO and ADQ thresholds.
The Exchange lastly believes that its proposal is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it is not intended to raise revenue for the Exchange; rather, it is intended to encourage efficient behavior so that Members do not exhaust System resources. Moreover, as noted above, competing options exchanges similarly assess fees to deter Members from over utilizing the exchange's System by having excessive order and/or quoting trading activity.
The Exchange finally notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange is only one of 18 options exchanges which market participants may direct their order flow and/or participate on, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to adopt fees for Unitized Logical Ports will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fees for will apply equally to all similarly situated Members. As discussed above, Unitized Logical Ports are optional and Members may choose to utilize Unitized Logical Ports, or not, based on their views of the additional benefits and added value provided by these ports. The Exchange believes the proposed fees will be assessed proportionately to the potential value or benefit received by Members with a greater number of Unitized Logical Ports and notes that Members may determine to cease using Unitized Logical Ports. As discussed, Members can also continue to access the Exchange through existing Logical Ports, which fees are not changing.
Similarly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to adopt ADO and ADQ fees will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary in furtherance of
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, including competition for order flow. Market Participants have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on, including 17 other options exchanges (including 3 other non-Cboe options exchanges), as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading. Indeed, participants can readily choose to submit their order flow to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.” The fact that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed change imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 3220 (Influencing or Rewarding Employees of Others) to increase the gift limit from $100 to $250 per person per year, provide for exemptive relief, and incorporate existing guidance and interpretive letters. The proposed rule change also would make a conforming change to the gift limit in Rule 2310 (Direct Participation Programs), Rule 2320 (Variable Contracts of an Insurance Company), Rule 2341 (Investment Company Securities), and Rule 5110 (Corporate Financing Rule—Underwriting Terms and Arrangements).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FINRA Rule 3220 (Influencing or Rewarding Employees of Others) (the “Gifts Rule”) prohibits any member or person associated with a member, directly or indirectly, from giving anything of value in excess of $100 per year to any person where such payment is in relation to the business of the recipient's employer.
Over the years, FINRA staff has issued guidance on interpretive issues related to gifts. For example, in 2006, FINRA issued
The proposed rule change is summarized here and set forth in detail below. The proposed rule change would increase the gift limit from $100 to $250 per person per year under the Gifts Rule as well as the Non-Cash Compensation Rules, which include an exception for gifts subject to the same dollar limit. The proposed rule change would also provide for exemptive relief from the Gifts Rule.
In addition, the proposed rule change would incorporate and substantially codify existing guidance by adding supplementary material to address gifts incidental to business entertainment, valuation of gifts, aggregation of gifts, personal gifts,
FINRA believes the proposed rule change would promote efficiency without reducing protection for investors and the public interest. Updating the gift limit as well as incorporating and substantially codifying existing guidance and interpretations would improve transparency, awareness, and understanding of the Gifts Rule's requirements. FINRA believes these proposed changes would also help facilitate compliance with the Gifts Rule.
The Gifts Rule prohibits any member or person associated with a member, directly or indirectly, from giving or permitting to be given anything of value in excess of $100 per year to any person where such payment or gratuity is in relation to the business of the recipient's employer. A gift of any kind is considered a gratuity. The rule also requires members to keep separate records regarding all payments or gratuities.
The discussion below of the proposed changes to the Gifts Rule is divided into three main topics: (A) increasing the gift limit from $100 to $250, (B) providing FINRA authority to grant exemptive relief from the Gifts Rule for good cause shown, and (C) adding to the Gifts Rule proposed supplementary material to incorporate existing guidance and interpretive positions regarding (i) gifts incidental to business entertainment, (ii) valuation of gifts, (iii) aggregation of gifts, (iv) personal gifts, (v)
The current gift limit of $100 has been in place since 1992.
Proposed new paragraph (d) of the Gifts Rule would authorize FINRA staff, pursuant to the FINRA Rule 9600 Series,
As previously noted, FINRA staff has issued guidance on various interpretive issues over the years related to the Gifts Rule. In 2006, FINRA issued
The proposed rule change would incorporate and substantially codify the existing guidance and interpretations into the Gifts Rule, which would improve transparency, awareness, and understanding of the rule's requirements. In addition, it would help facilitate compliance with the proposed rule change.
Under the current guidance, there is no express exclusion from the Gifts Rule for gifts given during the course of a business entertainment event.
FINRA believes that gifts given incidental to a business entertainment event, such as gift baskets or other items—including gifts of food or beverages in quantities beyond what could reasonably be consumed during the event—would be subject to the gift limit. For the purpose of this limit, the cost of the business entertainment event itself would not be included in the value of the gift.
The current guidance states that a member should value gifts at the higher of cost or market value, exclusive of tax and delivery charges.
FINRA proposes to add Rule 3220.02, which would require that gifts (other than tickets to sporting or other events) be valued at cost, exclusive of tax and delivery charges. This would be a change from the current guidance in
With respect to giving tickets to sporting or other events, consistent with the current guidance in
In addition, the current guidance states that if gifts are given to multiple recipients, members should record the names of each recipient and calculate and record the value of the gift on a pro rata per recipient basis for purposes of ensuring compliance with the gift limit.
Under the current guidance, members must aggregate all gifts given by the member and each associated person of the member to a particular recipient over the course of the year.
Consistent with the current guidance in
In
Proposed Rule 3220.03 would also provide that the aggregation requirements do not apply to a personal gift under proposed Rule 3220.04, or to a gift of
Under the current guidance, gifts that are given for infrequent life events (
In determining whether a gift is “in relation to the business of the employer of the recipient,” the current guidance states that members should consider a
Consistent with the current guidance, FINRA proposes to add Rule 3220.04 to provide that gifts that are given for infrequent life events (
FINRA believes this exception for personal gifts is appropriate because such gifts for infrequent life events do not typically create the types of improper incentives that the Gifts Rule seeks to avoid when gifts are given in relation to the business of the recipient's employer.
Under the current guidance, gifts given of a
Consistent with the current guidance, FINRA proposes to add proposed Rule 3220.05(a) to provide that gifts of a
Gifts valued in amounts above or near $250 would not be considered nominal. FINRA believes it is appropriate to specify that
Under the current guidance, customary Lucite stones, plaques, or other similar solely decorative items commemorating a business transaction are not subject to the restrictions in paragraph (a) of the Gifts Rule or the recordkeeping requirement of paragraph (c) of the rule, even when such items have a cost of more than $100.
Consistent with the current guidance, FINRA proposes to add proposed Rule 3220.05(b) to provide that customary and reasonable solely decorative items commemorating a business transaction are not subject to the restrictions in paragraph (a) of the Gifts Rule or the recordkeeping requirements in paragraph (c) of the rule. For example, Lucite stones, plaques, or other similar customary and reasonable solely decorative items commemorating a business transaction would be excluded from the requirements of the Gifts Rule, even when such items have a cost of more than $250.
FINRA does not believe it is necessary to explicitly limit the value of customary commemorative items because they must be solely decorative. Thus, the restrictions of the Gifts Rule would apply where the item is not solely decorative, irrespective of whether the item was intended to commemorate a business transaction. For example, providing employees of an Institutional Customer with elaborate electronic equipment following the closing of a transaction would be subject to the gift limit.
FINRA has published a Disaster-Related Donations FAQ on its website to address whether it would be consistent with the Gifts Rule for a member or an associated person to donate goods or money (either directly or through a fundraising platform) to employees of an Institutional Customer for losses sustained due to a federally-declared major disaster.
Consistent with the current guidance in the Disaster-Related Donations FAQ, FINRA proposes to add Rule 3220.06 to provide that donations by a member or an associated person to any person, principal, proprietor, employee, agent or representative of another person to provide assistance to the individual for losses sustained in a natural event that the President has declared to be a major disaster, such as a wildfire, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or flood, are not considered “in relation to the business of the employer of the recipient” for purposes of Rule 3220(a).
The Gifts Rule requires separate recordkeeping of all payments or gratuities.
Consistent with the current guidance, FINRA proposes to add proposed Rule 3220.07 to provide that to have a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Gifts Rule, members are required to have systems and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that payments and gratuities in relation to the business of the employer of the recipient given by the member and its associated persons to employees of another person
Consistent with the current guidance, the proposed supplementary material would also make explicit that the recordkeeping requirements of the Gifts Rule do not apply to gifts that are excluded from the restrictions of the rule. Thus, the recordkeeping requirements would not apply to personal gifts,
Currently, by its terms, the Gifts Rule does not apply to gifts a member gives to its own associated persons or to gifts a member or a member's associated person gives to individual retail customers. However, FINRA is aware that there may be some misunderstanding about the scope of the Gifts Rule, particularly regarding its application to gifts from a member or its associated persons to individual retail customers.
To clarify the scope of the Gifts Rule and improve awareness and understanding of its scope among members, associated persons, and customers, FINRA is proposing to add Rule 3220.08 to state expressly that the Gifts Rule does not apply to gifts from a member to its own associated persons, or to gifts from a member or an associated person to individual retail customers.
The Gifts Rule is intended to avoid improprieties, such as conflicts of interest, that may arise when a member or an associated person gives items of value to an employee of an Institutional Customer with the hope of strengthening the business relationship with the Institutional Customer.
The Non-Cash Compensation Rules prohibit members and their associated persons from directly or indirectly accepting or making payments or offers of payments of any non-cash compensation to any person in connection with the sale of variable insurance contracts,
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest by updating the Gifts Rule. For example, the proposal to increase the gift limit from $100 to $250 reflects the rate of inflation and accounts for future cost increases. The proposed rule change will also incorporate and substantially codify existing guidance and interpretations into the Gifts Rule, which will improve transparency, awareness, and understanding of the rule's requirements. In addition, this may facilitate compliance with the proposed rule change. Thus, the proposed rule change represents a significant step toward modernizing the Gifts Rule, while codifying existing guidance in a manner that will promote efficiency without reducing protection for investors.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to further analyze the need for the proposed rulemaking, the regulatory objective of the proposal, the economic baseline of the analysis, the economic impacts, and the alternatives considered.
FINRA's retrospective review of the Gifts Rule, among other things, concluded that this rule has been largely effective in meeting its intended investor protection objectives, but there are certain areas where the investor protection benefits may not align with the associated economic costs.
The current structure of the FINRA rules and guidance regarding gifts serves as an economic baseline to assess the potential impacts on members and investors. Such information on the current state of the rules is discussed above in Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for the Proposed Rule Change, respectively.
FINRA's retrospective review provides some information on the practice of giving gifts at the time of the review. The report provides survey results based on the responses of about 600 member firms.
The proposed amendments would impact members and associated persons. Using FINRA registration data, as of December 31, 2024, there were approximately 649,000 broker-dealer registered persons, of which approximately 530,000 are associated with large firms, approximately 58,000 are associated with mid-size firms, and approximately 61,000 are associated with small firms. The proposed amendments would also impact associated persons who are not broker-dealer registered persons. Information from other FINRA data suggests that there are approximately the same number of non-registered associated persons as registered persons.
The proposed amendments would directly impact members that regularly engage in gift giving. The increase in the gift limit from $100 to $250 per person per year in the Gifts Rule, and the conforming changes to the gift exception to the Non-Cash Compensation Rules, reflects the rate of inflation since adoption of the $100 gift limit and accounts for future cost increases. Thus, the increase would somewhat restore the historical balance between the economic benefits of developing relationships and goodwill through gifts and the potential for conflicts of interest.
The codification of current guidance regarding personal gifts,
The proposed codification of existing guidance in supplementary material should also reduce costs associated with supervision by improving transparency, awareness, and understanding of the rule's requirements. Further, as discussed above with respect to gift valuation, the proposed rule change would require that gifts (other than tickets to sporting or other events) be valued at cost, exclusive of tax and delivery charges. This proposed change from the current guidance in
FINRA considered a principles-based approach to the gift limit and determined that retaining a dollar-based gift limit would better serve the intended objective of the Gifts Rule that is consistent with investor protection by establishing a bright line standard that facilitates compliance, coupled with anti-evasion provisions. Alternative gift limits were considered in 2016 and FINRA at the time proposed to increase the limit from $100 to $175 per person per year as the proposed limit took into account the rate of inflation since adoption of the $100 gift limit. However, after considering the comments and with the additional passage of time, FINRA believes a $250 limit would be appropriate, taking into account the rate of inflation since adoption of the $100 gift limit and potential future cost increases. As mentioned earlier in Item 3(a)(2)(A) of this proposed rule change, FINRA recognizes, however, that a gift limit of $250 may need to be further adjusted at a later date to keep pace with inflation, among other factors. Thus, if the SEC approves the proposed rule change, FINRA intends to review periodically the gift limit to determine if further increases are warranted.
In August 2016, FINRA published
Material comments related to the proposed changes to the Gifts Rule and FINRA's responses are set forth in detail below.
In the
FINRA received a number of comment letters in response to the proposed changes to the Gifts Rule.
However, some commenters did not support the increase.
Some commenters suggested a principles-based approach to the gift limit.
After considering the comments and for the reasons discussed above, FINRA believes it is appropriate at this time to propose raising the gift limit to $250.
The Gifts Rule applies only to gifts a member or an associated person gives to employees of other persons. It does not apply to gifts a member or its associated persons receive from such employees or persons. FINRA sought comment in the
The majority of the commenters supported the continued application of the Gifts Rule to gifts given by a member or associated person but not to gifts they receive.
FINRA notes that the Non-Cash Compensation Rules impose limits on gifts received where the gifts are made in connection with the sale and distribution of DPPs, variable insurance contracts, investment company securities, or public offerings of securities.
Rule 3220(b) provides that the Gifts Rule “shall not apply to contracts of employment with or to compensation for services rendered by persons enumerated in paragraph (a) provided that there is in existence prior to the time of employment or before the services are rendered, a written agreement between the member and the person who is to be employed to perform such services.” The purpose of paragraph (b) is to exclude from the gift limit contracts of employment or contracts for services to be rendered by an individual who is also an employee, agent, or representative of a third-party firm. To rely on this exclusion, however, there needs to be a written agreement documenting the individual's employee or services relationship with the member. It does not require that the contract establish a statutory employer-employee (“W2”) relationship; rather, it envisions that the agreement may instead document an independent contractor relationship between the individual and member.
In the
While FINRA acknowledges the commenter's concern, FINRA continues to believe that for purposes of complying with Rule 3220(b), a written agreement is needed to verify the existence of an employee or services relationship with a person who is also “a person, principal, proprietor, employee, agent or representative
In the
In the
As discussed above, proposed Rule 3220.01 would make clear that the prohibition in paragraph (a) of the Gifts Rule does not apply to any gift given in compliance with proposed Rule 3220.04 (Personal Gifts) and 3220.05 (
In the
Several commenters to the
After considering the comments and as discussed above, FINRA has modified proposed Rule 3220.02 to require that gifts be valued at cost, exclusive of tax and delivery charges, thereby eliminating the requirement to value gifts at market value.
In the
FINRA received one comment opposing the proposed aggregation requirement.
For the reasons discussed above, proposed Rule 3220.03 would require aggregation consistent with the current guidance in
In addition, FINRA received comments requesting clarification regarding the application of the aggregation requirements.
After considering the comments, and for the reasons discussed above, proposed Rule 3220.03 would explicitly exclude from the aggregation requirement gifts meeting the requirements of proposed Rule 3220.04 (Personal Gifts) and 3220.05 (
In the
Also in the
FINRA received two comments requesting further clarification on the application of the personal gift exclusion.
Woodforest recommended revising the proposed supplementary material to remove the last sentences stating that “[i]n the first several sentences the rule seems to allow a member firm to give a personal gift for occasional life events.” However, Woodforest stated that this ability is negated by the last sentence, which notes that if the member reimburses the associated person or pays for the gift, it is presumed that it is not a personal gift.
FINRA has determined not to revise the proposed supplementary material as suggested by the commenters. The purpose of the exclusion for personal gifts is to eliminate the restrictions and recordkeeping requirements for gifts that are personal in nature and commemorate an infrequent life event because such gifts do not typically create the types of improper incentives that the Gifts Rule seeks to avoid when gifts are given in relation to the business of the recipient's employer. The exclusion is not intended to cover gifts given for events that occur frequently or even annually, such as birthdays. FINRA believes that proposed Rule 3220.04 is consistent with, and not narrower than, the guidance in
In the
With respect to the exclusion for
Commenters did not agree on what the appropriate dollar threshold should be for these items.
After considering the comments and as discussed above, FINRA believes that rather than establishing a dollar threshold at this time, it is appropriate to codify the current guidance that the value of gifts under this exclusion must be substantially below the gift limit, which is $250 as proposed.
SIFMA requested clarification regarding the value for promotional or commemorative items. As discussed above, FINRA believes it is appropriate to make clear that the value of promotional items must be substantially below the $250 limit because promotional items typically have utility (
FINRA also received comments regarding its statement in the
FINRA made clear in the
In the
FINRA did not receive any comments on the proposed supplementary material. However, FINRA has modified the supplementary material in the proposed rule change to make clear that the procedures must be reasonably designed to ensure that an associated person who is giving a payment or gratuity is not responsible for determining whether such payment or gratuity is in relation to the business of the recipient's employer. As discussed above, FINRA believes that requiring a person other than the associated person giving the gift to assess the nature of the gift would encourage objectivity in the determination of whether a gift is personal.
In addition, FINRA has further modified the proposed supplementary material in the proposed rule change to make clear that the recordkeeping requirements of the rule do not apply to gifts that are excluded from the restrictions of the rule (
In the
As discussed above, FINRA proposes to make this current application of the Gifts Rule explicit in proposed Rule 3220.08.
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.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-FINRA-2025-003 and should be submitted on or before July 8, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to modify the implementation schedule of amendments adopted in SR-FINRA-2024-019 with respect to fees for filing documents pursuant to the securities offering rules under Section 7 of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In November 2024, FINRA filed a proposed rule change to increase the revenues that FINRA, as a not-for-profit self-regulatory organization, relies upon to fund its regulatory mission.
The Corporate Financing Private Placement Review Fee currently will become effective on July 1, 2025.
The proposed rule change would modify the implementation schedule for the new Corporate Financing Private Placement Review Fee and the Corporate Financing Public Offering Review Fee increases from July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2026. During that 18-month period, Corporate Financing would continue its review of private placements at no charge and of public offerings at the current rate without increase.
The proposed modified implementation schedule would apply to both the new Corporate Financing Private Placement Review Fee and the increases to the Corporate Financing Public Offering Review Fee cap so that member firms and issuers that engage in private or public offerings have additional time for operational, budgeting, and financial planning purposes. The proposed modified implementation schedule would also provide FINRA additional time to review possible changes to statutes and regulations regarding offerings. In addition, it would give FINRA more time to establish processes related to assessing and collecting the new Corporate Financing Private Placement Review Fee. Although FINRA has been working towards establishing the systems needed to implement the new fee before its effective date (currently July 1, 2025), FINRA requires additional time to adjust its programming and processes. The proposed rule change will not impair Corporate Financing's ability to perform its core functions, including its review of public offerings and private placements.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The effective date and the implementation date will be the date of filing. The proposed rule change would modify the previously adopted schedule for implementing amendments to fees for filing documents pursuant to the securities offering rules under Section 7 of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws from July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2026. Implementation of those fee changes would instead commence on January 1, 2027 at the previously adopted rates for that year.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,
As described in the 2024 Fee Filing, FINRA adopted fee increases to its core regulatory fees as well as select use-based fees—including the Corporate Financing Private Placement Review Fee and Corporate Financing Public Offering Review Fee—to more effectively allow FINRA to balance its cash flow sources, operating expenses and capital expenditures, and stabilize its financial reserves by 2029 in a manner consistent with FINRA's public Financial Guiding Principles.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the proposed rule change would modify the previously adopted schedule for implementing the Corporate Financing Private Placement Review Fee and increasing the caps for the Corporate Financing Public Offering Review Fee from July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2026. As discussed above, during that 18-month period, Corporate Financing will continue its review of private placements at no charge and of public offerings at the current rate without increase.
In principle, the proposed change to the implementation schedule may impact incentives among issuers, for example by influencing the amount of offerings or how issuers time offerings in relation to the implementation date of fee changes applicable to such offerings. FINRA expects all such effects to be small given the relatively short length of the period at issue (18 months), and because numerous external market factors other than fees impact the amount and timing of offerings. Further, FINRA believes that, by providing more time to adjust to the fee changes, the proposed rule change would reduce costs associated with adapting systems to the scheduled changes.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from Section 15(c) of the Act.
The requested exemption would permit a Trust's board of trustees to approve new sub-advisory agreements and material amendments to existing sub-advisory agreements without complying with the in-person meeting requirement of Section 15(c) of the Act.
Venerable Variable Insurance Trust and Venerable Investment Advisers, LLC.
The application was filed on March 26, 2025, and amended on May 16, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Trace W. Rakestraw, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, dated May 16, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On February 24, 2025, NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”) and NYSE Arca Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) (each an “Exchange”; collectively, the “Exchanges”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On April 25, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described more fully in the Notices, the Exchanges propose to amend their listing rules to allow the listing and trading of options on units that represent interests in a trust that is a Commodity-Based Trust.
Specifically, the Exchanges propose, in their rules relating to the criteria for underlying securities, to remove references to the SPDR® Gold Trust, the iShares COMEX Gold Trust, the iShares Silver Trust, the ETFS Silver Trust, ETFS Gold Trust, the ETFS Palladium Trust, the ETFS Platinum, the iShares Bitcoin Trust, the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund, the ARK21Shares Bitcoin ETF, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC), the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust BTC, and the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF, which are all Commodity-Based Trust Shares.
As a result of these proposed rule changes, the Exchanges' listing criteria would allow any exchange traded fund (“ETF”) approved to list on the primary market as a Commodity-Based Trust Share to qualify as an underlying for options traded on the Exchanges, provided other listing criteria have been met, without requiring additional approvals from the Commission.
The Exchanges state that options on a Commodity-Based Trust Share will trade in the same manner as options on other ETFs on the Exchanges.
In addition, the Exchanges state the surveillance procedures applicable to all other options on ETFs will apply to options on Commodity-Based Trust Shares.
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 proposals. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposals are 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 changes should be approved or disapproved by July 8, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 22, 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 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to stay the effectiveness of specified expulsions of member firms, cancellations of membership, and denials of applications for continued membership of disqualified member firms to allow for SEC review. The proposed rule change would amend FINRA Rule 8320 (Payment of Fines, Other Monetary Sanctions, or Costs; Summary Action for Failure to Pay), the FINRA Rule 9000 Series (Code of Procedure), and Funding Portal Rule 900(b) (Eligibility Proceedings).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA rules to provide that specified expulsions of member firms, cancellations of membership, and denials of applications for continued membership of disqualified member firms shall not become effective until the time for filing an application for review with the SEC has expired
The proposed rule change would align FINRA rules relating to the
FINRA is also proposing to stay the effectiveness of other FINRA actions against member firms that may result in a sanction or action that shares the relevant characteristics of the sanction at issue in the Alpine Preliminary Injunction Decision, specifically expulsions imposed in full disciplinary proceedings and under FINRA Rule 8320 (for failure to pay fines, monetary sanctions, and costs), cancellations of membership, and denials of applications for continued membership. Like expulsions in expedited proceedings, these latter FINRA actions are not currently stayed under FINRA rules by the filing of an application for SEC review, and once the FINRA action becomes final and effective, the firm is no longer a FINRA member.
The specific proposed amendments to align FINRA rules relating to expulsions in expedited proceedings, and other FINRA actions against member firms that may result in a sanction or action that shares the relevant characteristics of such expulsions, with the Alpine Preliminary Injunction Decision are discussed in greater detail below.
Member firms may face expulsions and cancellations of membership in expedited proceedings under the FINRA Rule 9550 Series. At issue in the Alpine Preliminary Injunction Decision was FINRA's expedited proceeding to expel Alpine from membership for failing to comply with a “cease and desist” order that FINRA had previously issued against Alpine for violation of FINRA rules. In addition to situations involving a failure to comply with temporary or permanent cease and desist orders, FINRA may bring an expedited proceeding against a member firm for, among other grounds, failure to provide or keep information current; failure to pay FINRA dues, fees, and other charges; and failure to comply with an arbitration award or related settlement. Most of the rules governing expedited proceedings expressly provide for the potential cancellation of membership following notice to the member firm.
Generally, to initiate an expedited proceeding under the FINRA Rule 9550 Series, FINRA issues a notice stating that the member firm will be subject to specified requirements, conditions, or sanctions (which, as relevant here, may include a cancellation of membership), unless the respondent member firm undertakes the action specified in the notice (
FINRA Rule 9559 sets forth the hearing procedures for expedited proceedings under the FINRA Rule 9550 Series, including, among others, the appointment of a Hearing Officer or Hearing Panel, time and notice of hearing, and the timing of the decision. FINRA Rule 9559(n) provides that the Hearing Officer or Panel is authorized to approve, modify, or withdraw any sanction imposed in the notice, including a cancellation of membership, and with limited exceptions, may impose any other fitting sanction pursuant to FINRA Rule 8310(a). Such sanction could include expulsion of the member firm.
FINRA Rule 9559(p) sets forth the requirements for the contents of the decision of the Hearing Officer or Panel, and pursuant to subparagraph (6), the decision must include the date on which any sanction will be effective, if it is not already effective.
In addition, FINRA Rule 9559(r) currently provides that the filing of an application for review by the SEC does not stay the effectiveness of a final FINRA action in an expedited proceeding under the FINRA Rule 9550 Series, unless the SEC otherwise orders. FINRA is proposing to amend this provision to provide that, pursuant to amended FINRA Rule 9559(p)(6), an expulsion or cancellation of membership in an expedited proceeding shall not become effective until the time for filing an application for review with the SEC has expired and no such application is filed or, if such an application is timely filed, until the SEC completes its review under Exchange Act Section 19.
FINRA rules generally provide that sanctions imposed in disciplinary proceedings under the FINRA Rule 9200 Series will be effective on a date prescribed by a Hearing Panel. Unless otherwise provided in the decision, the expulsion of a member firm is effective immediately upon the written decision of the Hearing Panel (or Hearing Officer, in the case of a default decision) becoming the final disciplinary action of FINRA,
A member firm seeking review of an expulsion imposed in a decision under the FINRA Rule 9200 Series must appeal to the NAC in the first instance and not directly to the SEC.
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 9360 to provide that an expulsion of a member firm imposed by the NAC or Board in a disciplinary proceeding shall not become effective until the time for filing an application for review with the SEC has expired and no such application is filed or, if such an application is timely filed, until the SEC completes its review under Exchange Act Section 19.
In addition, FINRA Rule 9370 currently provides that the filing of an application for review by the SEC stays the effectiveness of any sanction, other than a bar or expulsion, imposed in a decision constituting final disciplinary action of FINRA for purposes of SEA Rule 19d-1(c)(1). FINRA is proposing to amend this Rule to provide that, pursuant to amended FINRA Rule 9360, an expulsion in a decision issued under FINRA Rule 9349 (by the NAC) or FINRA Rule 9351 (by the Board) shall not become effective until the time for filing an application for review with the SEC has expired and no such application is filed or, if such an application is timely filed, until the SEC completes its review under Exchange Act Section 19.
FINRA is also proposing a conforming change to FINRA Rule 9370 to replace the current language, which provides that a respondent “may apply” for SEC review of any action taken pursuant to the FINRA Rule 9200 Series or FINRA Rule 9300 Series, with language stating that such review “is governed” by Section 19 of the Exchange Act. This proposed amendment would achieve consistency with other provisions of FINRA's Code of Procedure addressing SEC review of final FINRA actions and mirrors the language of, for example, FINRA Rule 9559(r), discussed above, and FINRA Rule 9870 relating to cease and desist orders issued under the FINRA Rule 9800 Series.
Under FINRA Rules, if a disqualified member firm fails to request relief within 10 days of receiving notice of disqualification, its membership will be cancelled, unless FINRA staff grants an extension for good cause shown.
The denial by the NAC or Board of an application for continued membership is immediately effective, pursuant to FINRA Rules 9524(b)(3) and 9525(e), respectively. The Funding Portal rules, which generally provide that funding portal members are otherwise subject to the FINRA Code of Procedure, contain provisions governing eligibility proceedings that are comparable to FINRA Rules 9524(b)(3) and 9525(e).
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rules 9524(b)(3) and 9525(e), and Funding Portal Rules 900(b)(12)(M) and 900(b)(13)(E) to provide that a decision to deny an application for continued membership of a disqualified member firm or a disqualified funding portal member, as applicable, shall not become effective until the time for filing an application for review with the SEC has expired and no such application is filed or, if such an application is timely filed, until the SEC completes its review under Exchange Act Section 19. The proposed rule change also would update the language of the FINRA and Funding Portal rules by replacing references to “re-entry,” a term that is no longer in use, with the more precise and descriptive phrase, “application for a disqualified member's continued membership” and “application for a disqualified funding portal member's continued membership,” respectively. Finally, pursuant to the proposed rule change, these rules would expressly state that a decision to deny any other application under the FINRA Rule 9520 Series and Funding Portal Rule 900(b),
In addition, FINRA Rule 9527 and Funding Portal Rule 900(b)(14) currently provide that the filing of an application for review by the SEC does not stay the effectiveness of final action by FINRA in an eligibility proceeding under the FINRA Rule 9520 Series and Funding Portal Rule 900(b), respectively, unless the SEC otherwise orders. FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 9527 to provide that, pursuant to amended FINRA Rules 9524(b)(3) and 9525(e), a decision to deny an application for a disqualified member firm's continued membership shall not become effective until the time for filing an application for review with the SEC has expired and no such application is filed or, if such an application is timely filed, until the SEC completes its review under Exchange Act Section 19. Similarly, FINRA is proposing to amend Funding Portal Rule 900(b)(14) to include a cross-reference to amended Funding Portal Rules 900(b)(12)(M) and 900(b)(13)(E) and to make identical amendments regarding the effectiveness of a denial of an application for a disqualified funding portal member's continued membership.
A member firm can be expelled outside of a disciplinary proceeding or expedited proceeding pursuant to FINRA Rule 8320. Specifically, FINRA Rule 8320(b) provides that after seven days' written notice, FINRA may summarily suspend or expel from membership a member firm that fails to (1) pay promptly a fine or other monetary sanction imposed pursuant to FINRA Rule 8310, or cost imposed pursuant to FINRA Rule 8330 when such fine, monetary sanction, or cost becomes finally due and payable; or (2) terminate immediately the association of a person who fails to pay promptly a fine or other monetary sanction imposed pursuant to FINRA Rule 8310, or cost imposed pursuant to FINRA Rule 8330 when such fine, monetary sanction, or cost becomes finally due and payable.
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 8320 by renumbering the text of current paragraph (b) as paragraph (b)(1), and renumbering current paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) as (b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B), respectively. FINRA also proposes to adopt new paragraph (b)(2) to provide that an expulsion of a member firm under paragraph (b)(1) shall not become effective until the time for filing an application for review with the SEC has expired and no such application is filed or, if such an application is timely filed, until the SEC completes its review under Exchange Act Section 19.
FINRA notes that the proposed rule change affects a small number of cases. A review of FINRA records from January 2020 through March 31, 2025, found a total of nine adjudicated decisions resulting in an expulsion or cancellation of membership—two were in disciplinary proceedings and not appealed to the NAC; three were in expedited proceedings; and four were issued by the NAC in appeals of disciplinary decisions. As of the end of the review period, four of the nine decisions had been appealed to the SEC, three of which appeals were unsuccessful, and one remains pending. In addition, there were two expulsions pursuant to FINRA Rule 8320 during the review period, neither of which was appealed to the SEC. Between 2020 and 2024 (the last full year of data), the adjudicated decisions resulting in expulsions and cancellations of membership represented an average of 12% of all expulsions and cancellations. On an annual basis, the number of impacted member firms represented, on average, 0.6% of FINRA membership. FINRA notes that there were no denials of applications for continued membership of disqualified member firms within the five-year review period.
FINRA believes that any potential risk to investor protection posed by aligning FINRA rules with the Alpine Preliminary Injunction Decision, as described above, could be mitigated by several factors. In cases where an expulsion, cancellation of membership, or denial of an application for continued membership has been appealed to the SEC, FINRA will seek expeditious resolution by the SEC. And, where appropriate, FINRA may take additional steps to provide interim customer protections during the pendency of an appeal of a disciplinary decision imposing an expulsion or cancellation of membership. Pursuant to FINRA Rule 9285, in a disciplinary proceeding appealed to or called for review by the NAC, a Hearing Officer is authorized to impose any conditions or restrictions on the activities of a respondent member firm that the Hearing Officer considers reasonably necessary for the purpose of preventing customer harm. Such conditions or restrictions would target the misconduct at issue in the disciplinary proceeding and deter the member firm from engaging in further misconduct. The conditions or restrictions would remain in place until FINRA's final decision takes effect and all appeals, including an appeal to the SEC, are exhausted. Finally, FINRA notes that information about disciplinary proceedings and sanctions against member firms is available through FINRA's BrokerCheck.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change on the date of filing.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change aligns FINRA rules relating to the effectiveness of member firm expulsions in expedited proceedings, and other FINRA actions against member firms that may result in a sanction or action that shares the relevant characteristics of such expulsions, with the D.C. Circuit's ruling in the Alpine Preliminary Injunction Decision. In addition, FINRA believes that any potential risk to investor protection posed by this alignment could be mitigated by the factors discussed above. Finally, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will provide member firms and interested parties notice and clarity
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will ensure that FINRA rules relating to the effectiveness of expulsions in expedited proceedings, and other FINRA actions against member firms that may result in a sanction or action that shares the relevant characteristics of such expulsions, are aligned with the D.C. Circuit's ruling in the Alpine Preliminary Injunction Decision. In so doing, FINRA is not imposing new or additional costs or impacts on member firms or investors. Thus, the proposed rule change will allow FINRA to conduct disciplinary proceedings and meet its investor protection goals in a manner that is consistent with the Exchange Act and aligns with the Alpine Preliminary Injunction Decision.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify the Market Data Fees section of its Fee Schedule,
The Exchange offers three proprietary market data products (“IEX Market Data”): TOPS, an uncompressed data feed that provides aggregated top of book quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book; DEEP, an uncompressed data feed that provides aggregated depth of book quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book at each price level; and DEEP+, an uncompressed data feed that provides order-by-order depth of book quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book at each price level.
As proposed, the Exchange would make the free trial available for IEX's “Real-Time” market data products for which the Exchange currently charges a monthly fee, specifically TOPS and DEEP.
The free trial would not be applicable to the IEX data products that are currently offered free of charge,
As proposed, a first-time recipient of Real-Time TOPS and/or DEEP would not be charged fees for receiving that product in Real-Time for a period of up to 30 days. If the person or entity would receive the free trial from a Data Subscriber, the Data Subscriber must
For example, if the person or entity has not previously received TOPS or DEEP in Real-Time, such person or entity would be eligible for a free trial of both TOPS and DEEP in Real-Time. If the person or entity currently or previously received TOPS in Real-Time but not DEEP in Real-Time, the person or entity would be eligible for a free trial of DEEP in Real-Time.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.130(c) to provide that a person or entity wishing to obtain a free trial from the Exchange must complete a Data Subscriber Agreement and a Market Data Trial Addendum. If they have no existing connectivity to the Exchange, they must establish a connection and pay the monthly connectivity fee. The Exchange would not provide a free trial period for connectivity. A Data Subscriber with an existing subscription to Real-Time TOPS or DEEP may provide a free trial of up to 30 days of either or both data feeds to a first-time recipient of such data feed, subject to pre-approval from IEX and execution by the Data Subscriber of a Market Data Trial Addendum to their Data Subscriber Agreement with IEX.
As proposed, the free trial program will result in no changes to the fees charged by the Exchange for IEX Market Data. At the end of the free trial, the Exchange will charge the Data Subscriber for such access in accordance with the IEX Data Subscriber Agreement, IEX Market Data Policies, and Fee Schedule. A Data Subscriber distributing a free trial is responsible for discontinuing access before the end of the free trial, unless the trial participant executes a Data Subscriber Agreement with IEX to receive and pay for the data feed.
In the event that a free trial participant chooses not to subscribe to a particular IEX Market Data product at the conclusion of the trial period, they will not be considered Data Subscribers and will not owe any fees to the Exchange. Any free trial participant that does elect to subscribe to that particular IEX Market Data product must inform the Exchange, or Data Subscriber, as applicable, of its intent and complete any necessary steps to license access to the IEX Market Data product through the Exchange or the Data Subscriber.
The purpose of offering free trials is to enable the Exchange to provide trials of Real-Time IEX Market Data to first-time recipients, as well as to enable distributors to provide trials of their product to first-time users. The Exchange believes that providing a one-time free trial of up to 30 days to Real-Time IEX Market Data would enable potential Data Subscribers to become familiar with the Exchange's particular market data products and make informed decisions about whether a particular Exchange market data product provides value to their business models before expending resources to develop and implement use of that market data product. The Exchange notes that other exchanges have similar free trial programs.
The Exchange proposes removing footnote 3 from the table of Market Data Fees in the Fee Schedule, where it appears next to the “FREE” designation for DEEP+ (Real-Time and Delayed) in the Fee column and provides that “[t]hese fees will be operative when the product is launched. IEX will announce the launch date by Trader Alert at least 10 business days in advance of the product launch.”
On August 1, 2024 the Exchange announced via Trading Alert that it would launch DEEP+ on or after November 1, 2024, subject to filing and effectiveness of an SEC rule filing, and that the Exchange would not charge any fees for receipt or use of DEEP+ for a promotional (
In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule text of Rule 11.130(c) by adding a reference to the Market Data Trial Addendum, as described above, and adding the word “Subscriber” to the description of the IEX Data Subscriber Agreement that appears in the second sentence of the rule. These proposed changes are consistent with the proposed free trial program described above and the title of the IEX Data Subscriber Agreement. The Exchange believes these changes would
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with charging fees that are reasonable, fair, and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed rule change does not change the level of fees that the Exchange currently charges. In addition, the Exchange believes that providing the option of a one time free trial will enable potential Data Subscribers to become familiar with the features and functionality of the Exchange's Real-Time market data products for a limited time with no financial commitment.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the financial benefit of the free trial is available to any person or entity interested in receiving a particular Real-Time market data product for the first time. The Exchange believes that providing time limited access to the Exchange's Real-Time market data products to first-time recipients is equitable because access to the financial benefit of the free trial is not a function of, nor conditioned on, the use they plan to make of the market data product.
In addition, the Exchange believes there is a meaningful distinction between Data Subscribers who are receiving a particular Exchange market data product for the first time and may benefit from a period in which to set up, test, and gain hands-on experience with the product, from Data Subscribers who are already receiving that same Exchange market data product and deriving value from it. The Exchange believes that limiting the free trial to Data Subscribers who have not previously subscribed to a particular Exchange market data product is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because those who are current or previous Data Subscribers of that product are already familiar with it and have already had an opportunity to evaluate whether the market data product will add value to their business model. The Exchange further believes that providing a free trial would potentially reduce administrative costs for Data Subscribers to subscribe to or distribute a new data product and eliminate fees for a limited time before they would be able to derive value from using or distributing the data product.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11A of the Exchange Act in that it is designed to facilitate the economically efficient execution of securities transactions, fair competition among brokers and dealers, exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets, and the practicability of brokers executing investors' orders in the best market. As noted above, the proposed free trial program for Real-Time market data products is designed to expand access to IEX Market Data to a broad range of market participants and thereby supports the economically efficient execution of securities transactions on IEX.
As discussed in the Purpose section, other exchanges have similar free trial programs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes deleting references to obsolete rule text from the Fee Schedule and revising the reference to the IEX Data Subscriber Agreement in Rule 11.130(c) are not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed changes do not change fees, but rather clarify the Fee Schedule by removing obsolete text, and conforming the rule text in Rule 11.130(c) to the Fee Schedule and IEX Data Subscriber Agreement. The Exchange believes all readers of the Fee Schedule and Rule 11.130(c) would benefit from the clarity and precision that would result from the proposed changes, which would contribute to reasonably ensuring that the fees described there are clear and accurate. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Fee Schedule and Rule 11.130(c) are not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on intramarket or intermarket 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 intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposal is designed to enhance the Exchange's competitiveness by providing free trials of its Real-Time market data products to first-time recipients, incentivizing potentially increased use of IEX TOPS and DEEP, and expanding access to IEX Market Data. Other exchanges are free to lower their prices or provide a free trial program to better compete with the Exchange's offering, subject to the Commission's rule filing process.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed program does not impose a burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because all similarly situated market data users will be treated similarly in that all first-time recipients of a particular market data product may avail themselves one time of the free trial per eligible market data product.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 3, 2025, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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 29, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described in more detail in the Notice,
According to the Exchange, the investment objective of the Trust is to seek to provide exposure to the value of Dogecoin
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 asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposal to list and trade Shares of the Trust, which would hold Dogecoin, is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices or raises any new or novel concerns not previously contemplated by the Commission.
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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by July 8, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 22, 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 April 7, 2025, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Texas, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (“Exchanges”) each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule changes so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule changes. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Trinity Capital Inc., Trinity Capital Adviser LLC, TrinCap Funding, LLC, EPT 16 LLC, and EPT SPV 16 Sub (US) LLC.
The application was filed on June 28, 2024, and amended on April 29, 2025, and June 10, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, Toyin Momoh, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' second amended application, dated June 10, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) applicable to MIAX Pearl Equities, an equities trading facility of the Exchange, to: (1) reduce the rebate provided under the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate under the NBBO Setter Plus Program (referred to in this filing as the “NBBO Program”) (defined below); (2) reduce the rebate provided under the NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate under the NBBO Program; (3) amend the requirements for qualifying for the rebates provided under for the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate and NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate programs; and (4) make a non-substantive cleanup change to footnote 5 of the NBBO Setter Plus Table.
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 Fee Schedule to: (1) reduce the rebate provided under the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate under the NBBO Setter Plus Program (referred to in this filing as the “NBBO Program”);
The Exchange initially filed this proposal on May 30, 2025 (SR-PEARL-2025-25), which was withdrawn without being noticed. On June 6, 2025, the Exchange withdrew SR-PEARL-2025-25 and refiled this proposal.
In general, the NBBO Program provides enhanced rebates for Equity Members
Pursuant to the NBBO Setter Plus Table in Section 1)c) of the Fee Schedule, the NBBO Program provides six volume tiers enhanced by three market quality levels to provide increasing rebates in this segment. The six volume tiers are achievable by greater volume from the best of four alternative methods. The three market quality levels are achievable by greater NBBO participation in a minimum number of specific securities (described below).
MIAX Pearl Equities first determines the applicable NBBO Program tier based on four different volume calculation methods. The four volume-based methods to determine the Equity Member's tier for purposes of the NBBO Program are calculated in parallel in each month, and each Equity Member receives the highest tier achieved from any of the four methods each month. All four volume calculation methods are based on an Equity Member's respective ADAV,
Under volume calculation Method 1, the Exchange provides tiered rebates based on an Equity Member's ADAV as a percentage of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the base rebates in Tier 1 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV of at least 0.00% and less than 0.035% of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 2 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV of at least 0.035% and less than 0.05% of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 3 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV of at least 0.05% and less than 0.08% of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 4 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV of at least 0.08% and less than 0.20% of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 5 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV of at least 0.20% and less than 0.40% of TCV. Finally, an Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 6 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV equal to or greater than 0.40% of TCV.
Under volume calculation Method 2, the Exchange provides tiered rebates based on an Equity Member's NBBO Set Volume as a percentage of TCV. Under volume calculation Method 2, an Equity Member qualifies for the base rebates in Tier 1 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an NBBO Set Volume of at least 0.00% and less than 0.01% of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in
Under volume calculation Method 3, the Exchange provides tiered rebates based on an Equity Member's ADV as a percentage of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the base rebates in Tier 1 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADV of at least 0.00% and less than 0.15% of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 2 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADV of at least 0.15% and less than 0.18% of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 3 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADV of at least 0.18% and less than 0.20% of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 4 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADV of at least 0.20% and less than 0.60% of TCV. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 5 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADV of at least 0.60% and less than 1.00% of TCV. Finally, an Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 6 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADV equal to or greater than 1.00% of TCV.
Under volume calculation Method 4, the Exchange provides tiered rebates based on an Equity Member's ADAV as a percentage of TCV exclusive of executions of orders in securities priced below $1.00 per share across all Tapes. An Equity Member qualifies for the base rebates in Tier 1 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV of at least 0.00% and less than 0.035% of TCV, exclusive of executions of orders in securities priced below $1.00 per share across all Tapes. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 2 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV of at least 0.035% and less than 0.05% of TCV, exclusive of executions of orders in securities priced below $1.00 per share across all Tapes. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 3 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV of at least 0.05% and less than 0.08% of TCV, exclusive of executions of orders in securities priced below $1.00 per share across all Tapes. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 4 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV of at least 0.08% and less than 0.20% of TCV, exclusive of executions of orders in securities priced below $1.00 per share across all Tapes. An Equity Member qualifies for the enhanced rebates in Tier 5 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV of at least 0.20% and less than 0.40% of TCV, exclusive of executions of orders in securities priced below $1.00 per share across all Tapes. Finally, an Equity Member will qualify for the enhanced rebates in Tier 6 for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an ADAV equal to or greater than 0.40% of TCV, exclusive of executions of orders in securities priced below $1.00 per share across all Tapes.
After the volume calculation is performed to determine highest tier achieved by the Equity Member, the applicable rebate is calculated based on two different measurements based on the Equity Member's participation at the NBBO on the Exchange in certain securities (referenced below).
The Exchange provides one column of base rebates (referred to in the NBBO Program table as “Level A”) and two columns of enhanced rebates (referred to in the NBBO Program table as “Level B” and “Level C”),
The base rebates (“Level A”) are as follows: ($0.00210)
The Exchange also offers an NBBO Setter Additive Rebate, which is an additive rebate of ($0.0004) per share for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume (other than Retail Orders
Additionally, the Exchange offers an NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate, which is an additive rebate of ($0.0002) per share for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume (other than Retail Orders) for the
The Exchange proposes to reduce the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate in the NBBO Setter Plus Table in Section (1)(c) of the Fee Schedule. Currently, the Exchange provides an NBBO Setter Additive Rebate of ($0.0004) per share, which applies only to executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume (other than Retail Orders) that set the NBB or NBO on MIAX Pearl Equities with a minimum size of a round lot. The Exchange now proposes to decrease the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate from ($0.0004) to ($0.0003) per share for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume (other than Retail Orders) that set the NBB or NBO on MIAX Pearl Equities with a minimum size of a round lot. The purpose of reducing the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate is for business and competitive reasons in light of recent volume growth on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that despite the modest reduction proposed herein, the proposed NBBO Setter Additive Rebate (
The Exchange proposes to reduce the NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate in the NBBO Setter Plus Table in Section (1)(c) of the Fee Schedule. Currently, the Exchange provides an NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate of ($0.0002) per share, which applies only to executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume (other than Retail Orders) for the
The Exchange proposes to modify the requirements by which Equity Members qualify for the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate and the NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate by requiring Equity Members to achieve an additional requirement. In particular, an Equity Member will qualify for the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate and/or the NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume across all Tapes by achieving an NBBO Set Volume of at least 0.015% of TCV in the relevant month, in addition to the current set of requirements for Equity Members to achieve each rebate.
The Exchange notes that the rebates in NBBO Setter Plus program table offered by the Exchange are calculated using in a similar measure to the measures proposed herein, specifically volume
The purpose of this proposed change is to provide an incentive for Equity Members to strive for higher ADAV in all securities for which the Equity Member sets the NBB or NBO on the Exchange to receive the additive rebates. The Exchange believes that this change will encourage the submission of additional Added Displayed Volume to the Exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and contributing to a deeper and more liquid market, which benefits all market participants and enhances the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue.
The Exchange proposes to amend footnote 5 of the NBBO Setter Plus Table to make a minor non-substantive cleanup change. Currently, footnote 5 provides that “Retail Orders are not eligible for the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate, the NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate, or the Step-Up Rebate as these rebates only apply to Liquidity Indicator Codes AA, AB and AC.”
The proposed fee changes are effective immediately.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of sixteen registered equities exchanges, and there are a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange had more than approximately 14% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading for the month of April 2025.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance liquidity and market quality in both a broad manner and in a targeted manner with respect to the NBBO Program, in particular, and Added Displayed Volume in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share, in general.
The Exchange believes its proposal to reduce the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate from ($0.0004) per share for Added Displayed Volume (other than Retail Orders) for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that set the NBB or NBO on MIAX Pearl Equities with a minimum size of a round lot to ($0.0003) per share is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes it will continue to provide an additional incentive for Equity Members to contribute Added Displayed Volume in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that sets the NBB or NBO on MIAX Pearl Equities. In turn, this should benefit all Equity Members by providing greater execution opportunities on the Exchange and contribute to a deeper, more liquid market, to the benefit of all investors and market participants. Further, the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate is available to all Equity Members of the Exchange that transact in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share in all Tapes. The Exchange notes that despite the modest reduction proposed herein, the proposed NBBO Setter Additive Rebate (
The Exchange believes its proposal to reduce the NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate from ($0.0002) to ($0.0001) per share for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share for Added Displayed Volume (other than Retail Orders) for the
The Exchange believes that the proposal to modify the requirements by which Equity Members qualify for the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate and the NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate is comparable to the Exchange's other incentive calculation methods and incentive calculation methods currently offered by other exchanges,
The Exchange believes its proposal to amend footnote 5 of the NBBO Setter Plus Table to remove the reference to the Step-Up Rebate promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed change will provide greater clarity to Equity Members and the public regarding the Fee Schedule. The proposed change will remove an additive rebate that is no longer in effect.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes its proposed changes to the NBBO Program, a decrease to the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate, a decrease to the NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate, and an amendment to the requirements to qualify for the NBBO Setter Additive Rebate and the NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate would continue to incentivize Equity Members to submit additional orders that add liquidity to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market and promoting price discovery and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Equity Members by providing more trading opportunities and encourages Equity Members to send additional orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants. As described above, the opportunity to qualify for the NBBO First Joiner Additive Rebate or increased NBBO Setter Additive Rebate, and thus receive the additive rebates for qualifying executions of Added Displayed Volume, would be available to all Equity Members that meet the associated requirements, and the Exchange believes the proposed changes provide such incentives is reasonably related to the enhanced market quality that they are designed to promote. As such the Exchange does not believe the proposed changes would impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes will benefit competition, and the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market. Equity Members have numerous alternative venues they may participate on and direct their order flow to, including fifteen other equities exchanges and numerous alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no single registered equities exchange currently had more than 14% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading for the month of April 2024.
Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to amend footnote 5 of the NBBO Setter Plus Table to remove the reference to the Step-Up Rebate will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal will have no impact on competition as it is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather is designed to make a minor cleanup change to provide added clarity to the Fee Schedule by removing the reference to an additive rebate that is no longer in effect.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 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 28, 2025, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“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 29, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described in more detail in the Notice,
According to the Exchange, the investment objective of the Trust is for the value of the Shares to reflect the value of the native token of the Hedera Network (“HBAR”)
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 asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposal to list and trade Shares of the Trust, which would hold HBAR, is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices or raises any new or novel concerns not previously contemplated by the Commission.
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 July 8, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 22, 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 April 9, 2025, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 5, 2025, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) (each an “Exchange”; collectively, the “Exchanges”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On April 25, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described more fully in the Notices, the Exchanges propose to amend their listing rules to allow the listing and trading of options on Units (or Fund Shares)
Specifically, the Exchanges propose, in their rules relating to the criteria for underlying securities, to remove references to the SPDR Gold Trust, the iShares COMEX Gold Trust, the iShares Silver Trust, the Aberdeen Standard Physical Silver Trust, the Aberdeen Standard Physical Gold Trust, the Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Trust, the Aberdeen Standard Physical Platinum Trust, the Sprott Physical Gold Trust, the Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF, the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund, the ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF, the iShares Bitcoin Trust, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust, or the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF, which are all Commodity-
As a result of these proposed rule changes, the Exchanges' listing criteria would allow any exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) approved to list on a primary equities market as a Commodity-Based Trust Share to qualify as an underlying for options traded on the Exchanges, provided other listing criteria have been met, without requiring additional approvals from the Commission. The Exchanges state that offering options on Commodity-Based Trust Shares provides investors with the ability to hedge exposure to the underlying security. Additionally, the Exchanges state that options on a Commodity-Based Trust Share provide investors with the ability to transact in such options in a listed market environment, which would increase market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchanges through increased order flow to the benefit of all investors.
The Exchanges state that options on a Commodity-Based Trust Share will trade in the same manner as options on other ETFs on the Exchanges.
In addition, the Exchanges state that they have an adequate surveillance program in place for options and intend to apply those same program procedures to options on Commodity-Based Fund Shares that they apply to the Exchanges' other options products, and that the Exchanges and the Options Price Reporting Authority (or “OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series of ETFs, including on Commodity-Based Trust Shares, up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Exchanges' rules.
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 proposals. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposals are 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 changes should be approved or disapproved by July 8, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 22, 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 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend Rule 19.3, Criteria for Underlying Securities to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on the Fidelity Ethereum Fund, the Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF, the Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF, and the Bitwise Ethereum ETF as Fund Shares deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5 and 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 Rule 19.3 regarding the criteria for underlying securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 19.3(i) to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on shares or other securities (“Fund Shares”) that are principally traded on a national securities exchange and are defined as an “NMS stock” under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS and that represent interests in the Fidelity Ethereum Fund (the “Fidelity Fund” or “FETH”), the Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF (the “Grayscale Fund” or “ETHE”), the Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF (the “Grayscale Mini Fund” or “ETH”), and the Bitwise Ethereum ETF (the “Bitwise Fund” or “ETHW” and, collectively, the “Ethereum Funds”).
Current Rule 19.3(i) provides that, subject to certain other criteria set forth in that Rule, securities deemed appropriate for options trading include Fund Shares that represent certain types of interests,
The Exchange proposes to expand the list of Funds that are appropriate for
The Ethereum Funds are Ethereum-backed commodity ETFs structured as trusts. Similar to any Fund Share currently deemed appropriate for options trading under Rule 19.3(i), the investment objective of each Ethereum Fund is for its shares to reflect the performance of Ethereum (less the expenses of the trust's operations), offering investors an opportunity to gain exposure to Ethereum without the complexities of Ethereum delivery. As is the case for Fund Shares currently deemed appropriate for options trading, an Ethereum Fund's shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in the trust, the assets of which consist principally of Ethereum and are designed to track Ethereum or the performance of the price of Ethereum and offer access to the Ethereum market.
The Exchange's initial listing standards for Fund Shares on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to the Ethereum Funds. Pursuant to Rule 19.3(a), a security (which includes a Fund Share) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be registered (with the Commission) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”)), and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
While not required by the Rules for purposes of options listings, the Exchange believes the Ethereum Funds satisfy the criteria and guidelines set forth in Rule 19.3(a) and (b). Pursuant to Rule 19.3(a), a security (which includes a Fund Share) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be duly registered (with the Commission) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act, and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
Based on data in the Cboe Approval Order, as of December 23, 2024, the Fidelity Fund had 41,700,000 shares outstanding, which is nearly six times more than the minimum number of shares of a corporate stock (
The Cboe Approval Order noted that, as demonstrated above, despite the fact that the Fidelity Fund has been trading for approximately five months as of December 23, 2024, its total trading volume as of that date was substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares (more than 48 times that amount), which is the minimum 12-month volume generally required for a corporate stock in order to list options on that security as set forth in Exchange Rule 19.3(b). Additionally, as of December 23, 2024, the trading volume for the Fidelity Fund was in the top 5% of all ETFs that are currently trading. The Cboe Approval Order noted that this data demonstrates the Fidelity Fund is characterized as having shares that are actively traded.
With respect to the NYSE Ethereum Funds, the Exchange reviewed the data presented by NYSE American in its filing with respect to shares outstanding (and corresponding market capitalization), number of beneficial holders, and trading volume. As of
As shown above, each of the NYSE Ethereum Funds had significantly more than 7,000,000 shares outstanding, which is the minimum number of shares of a corporate stock that the Exchange generally requires to list options on that stock pursuant to Rule 19.3(b).
As this table shows, each NYSE Ethereum Fund has significantly more than 2,000 beneficial holders (approximately 56, 9, and 3 times more, respectively), which is the minimum number of holders the Exchange generally requires for corporate stock in order to list options on that stock pursuant to pursuant to Rule 19.3(b).
The Exchange also believes that, based on trading volume since the NYSE Ethereum Funds began trading on July 23, 2024, shares of the NYSE Ethereum Funds are actively traded. In particular, the table below sets forth the total trading volume (by shares and notional) from the inception of trading through either November 29, 2024 (for the Grayscale Fund and the Grayscale Mini Fund) or December 31, 2024 (for the Bitwise Fund). In addition, the below table illustrates the ADV over the 30-day period of either October 29, 2024—through November 29, 2024 (for the Grayscale Fund and the Grayscale Mini Fund) or November 29, 2024—through December 31, 2024 (for the Bitwise Fund).
As demonstrated above, even though the NYSE Ethereum Funds have been trading for less than one year, the trading volume for each NYSE Ethereum Fund is substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares (roughly 178, 72, and 16 times that amount), which is the minimum 12-month volume the Exchange generally requires for a security in order to list options on that security as set forth in Rule 19.3(b). The Exchange believes this data demonstrates each NYSE Ethereum Fund is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are actively traded.
Options on the Ethereum Funds will be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards set forth in Rule 19.4(g) for Fund Shares deemed appropriate for options trading pursuant to Rule 19.3(i). Specifically, 19.4(g) provides that Fund Shares that were initially approved for options trading pursuant to Rule 19.3 will not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering such Fund Shares if the security ceases to be an NMS stock (see Rule 19.4(b)(4)). Additionally, the Exchange will not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering Fund Shares in any of the following circumstances: (1) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved for trading under Rule 19.3(i)(1)(A), in accordance with the terms of Rule 19.4(b)(1), (2) and (3); (2) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved pursuant to Rule 19.3(i)(1)(B), following the initial 12-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading in the Fund Shares on a national securities exchange and are defined as NMS stock under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, there were fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of such Fund Shares for 30 consecutive days; (3) the value of the index, non-U.S. currency, portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts and/or options on physical commodities and/or Financial Instruments or Money Market Instruments, or portfolio of securities on which the Fund Shares are based is no longer calculated or available; or (4) such other event occurs or condition exists that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.
Options on each Ethereum Fund will be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Rule 19.5, Interpretation and Policy .01, which governs strike prices of series of options on Fund Shares, the interval of strike prices for series of options on the Trust will be $1 or greater when the strike price is $200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price is over $200.
The Ethereum Fund options will trade in the same manner as any other Fund Share options on the Exchange. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all Fund Share options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of Ethereum Funds options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Fund Shares that are listed and traded on the Exchange, including the precious-metal and Bitcoin-backed commodity Fund Shares already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to current Rule 19.3(i).
Position and exercise limits for options on ETFs, including options on the Ethereum Funds, are determined pursuant to Exchange Rules 18.7 and 18.9, respectively. Position and exercise limits for ETF options vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volumes of the underlying ETF over the past six months, where the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded ETFs have an option position and exercise limits of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization ETFs have position and exercise limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market.
Position limits are designed to limit the number of options contracts traded on the Exchange in an underlying security that an investor, acting alone or in concert with others directly or indirectly, may control. The purpose of position limits, which are set forth in Exchange Rule 18.7, is to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. As such, position limits must balance concerns regarding mitigating potential manipulation and the cost of inhibiting potential hedging activity that investors may use for legitimate economic purposes. To achieve this balance, the Exchange proposes to set the position and exercise limits for the options on the Ethereum Funds at 25,000 contracts. Capping the position limit at 25,000 contracts, the lowest limit available in options, would address concerns related to manipulation and protection of investors as this number is conservative for the Ethereum Funds and therefore appropriate given their liquidity. While the Exchange believes that the proposed 25,000-contract position limit is conservative for options on the Ethereum Funds, it nonetheless believes that, for the reasons set forth below, evidence exists to support a much higher position limit.
As provided in the Cboe Approval Order, the proposed position and exercise limits were determined considering, among other things, the ADV (since trading of the Fidelity Fund began on July 23, 2024) and outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund (which as discussed above demonstrate that the Fidelity Fund is widely held and actively traded and thus justify these conservatively proposed position limits), as set forth below, along with
As provided in the Cboe Approval Order, the number of outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund were compared to those of other ETFs. The approximate average position (and exercise limit) of ETF options with similar outstanding shares (as of December 31, 2024) was approximately 102,703 contracts, which is significantly higher (approximately 4 times) than the proposed position and exercise limit of 25,000 contracts for Fidelity Fund options.
As provided in the Cboe Approval Order, if a market participant held the maximum number of positions possible pursuant to the proposed position and exercise limits, the equivalent shares represented by the proposed position/exercise limit would represent approximately 6.0% of the 41,700,000 current outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund. Therefore, if a market participant held the maximum permissible options positions in Fidelity Fund options and exercised all of them at the same time, that market participant would control a small percentage of the outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund.
Rule 18.7(d) provides two methods of qualifying for a position limit tier above 25,000 option contracts. The first method is based on six-month trading volume in the underlying security, and the second method is based on slightly lower six-month trading volume and number of shares outstanding in the underlying security. An underlying stock or ETF that qualifies for method two based on trading volume and number of shares outstanding would be required to have the minimum number of outstanding shares as shown in middle column of the table below. The table below, which provides the equivalent shares of the position limits applicable to equity options, including ETFs, further represents the percentages of the minimum number of outstanding shares that an underlying stock or ETF must have to qualify for that position limit (under the second method described above).
The equivalent shares represented by the proposed position and exercise limits for the Fidelity Fund as a percentage of outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund is significantly lower than the percentage for the lowest possible position limit for equity options of 25,000, which is the position limit the Exchange is proposing for Fidelity Fund options.
Further, the proposed position and exercise limits for Fidelity Fund options are equal to the lowest position and exercise limits available in the options industry for equity options, are extremely conservative and more than appropriate given the market capitalization, average daily volume, and high number of outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund.
All of the above information demonstrates that the proposed position and exercise limits for Fidelity Fund options are more than reasonable and appropriate. The trading volume, ADV, and outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund demonstrate that its shares are actively traded and widely held, and the proposed position and exercise limits are well below those of options on other ETFs with similar market characteristics. The proposed position and exercise limits would be the lowest position and exercise limit available for equity options in the industry, are extremely conservative, and are more than appropriate given the Fidelity Fund's market capitalization, ADV, and high number of outstanding shares.
As noted above, the Exchange believes that the trading volume in each NYSE Ethereum Fund is sufficient to qualify each Fund for position limits in excess of the proposed 25,000-contract limit,
Specifically, the trading volume referenced in the table above in ETHE and ETH well exceeds the requisite minimum of 100,000,000 shares necessary to qualify for the 250,000-contract position and exercise limits.
As this table demonstrates, if a market participant held the maximum permissible options positions in one of the NYSE Ethereum Fund options and exercised all of them at the same time, that market participant would control a small percentage of the outstanding shares of the underlying NYSE Ethereum Fund. For example, as noted above, a position limit of 25,000 same side contracts effectively restricts a market participant from holding positions that could result in the receipt of no more than 2,500,000 shares of the applicable NYSE Ethereum Fund (if that market participant exercised all its options). Based on the number of shares outstanding for each NYSE Ethereum Fund as of November 29, 2024, as presented in the NYSE American Approval,
This means if 71 market participants had 25,000 same side positions in options on ETHE, each of them would have to simultaneously exercise all of those options to create a scenario that may put the underlying security under stress. Similarly, this means if 18 market participants had 25,000 same side positions in options on the ETH, each of them would have to simultaneously exercise all of those options to create a scenario that may put the underlying security under stress. Finally, this means if 7 market participants had 25,000 same side positions in options on ETHW, each of them would have to simultaneously exercise all of those options to create a scenario that may put
Further, given that the issuer of each NYSE Ethereum Fund may create and redeem shares that represent an interest in ether, the Exchange believes it is relevant to compare the size of a position limit to the market capitalization of the ether market. As of November 29, 2024, based on data presented in the NYSE American Approval,
Therefore, if a market participant with the maximum 25,000 same side contracts in options on any of ETHE, ETH, ETHW exercised all positions at one time, such an event would have no practical impact on the ether market. The Exchange also reviewed data presented in the NYSE American Approval
As this data gathered by NYSE American demonstrates, the NYSE Ethereum Funds collectively represent approximately 1.71% of the global supply of ether (120,440,000).
The Exchange also believes the proposed limits are appropriate given position limits for ether futures. The NYSE American Approval presented data
The approximate number of option contracts for each NYSE Ethereum Fund that would equate to the notional value of CME ether futures is significantly higher than the proposed limit of 25,000 options contracts for each NYSE Ethereum Fund option. The fact that many options ultimately expire out-of-the-money and thus are not exercised for shares of the underlying, while the delta of an ether future is 1, the NYSE American Approval further demonstrates how conservative the proposed limits of 25,000 options contracts are for the NYSE Ethereum Fund options.
The Exchange notes, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
Consistent with its position regarding the irrelevance of bitcoin supply to position limits for options on bitcoin ETPs, the Exchange likewise believes the available supply of ether is not relevant to the determination of position and exercise limits for Ethereum Fund options.
The Exchange notes that a Registration Statement on Form S-1 was filed with the Commission for each NYSE Ethereum Fund, each of which described the supply of ether as being unlimited.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes the proposal to list options on the NYSE Ethereum Funds with position and exercise limits of 25,000 on the same side, the lowest position limit available in the options industry, is conservative and appropriate given the market capitalization, ADV, and high number of outstanding shares for each of the NYSE Ethereum Funds. The proposed position and exercise limits reasonably and appropriately balance the liquidity provisioning in the market against the prevention of manipulation. The Exchange believes these proposed limits are effectively designed to prevent an individual customer or entity from establishing options positions that could be used to manipulate the market of the underlying NYSE Ethereum Funds as well as the ether market.
Today, the Exchange has an adequate surveillance program in place for options. The Exchange intends to apply those same program procedures to options on the Ethereum Funds that it applies to the Exchange's other options products, including options on Fund Shares.
The underlying shares of spot Ethereum ETPs, including the Ethereum Funds, are also subject to safeguards related to addressing market abuse and manipulation. As the Commission stated in its order approving proposals of several exchanges to list and trade shares of spot Ethereum-based ETPs,
In light of surveillance measures related to both options and futures as well as the underlying Ethereum Funds,
Finally, quotation and last sale information for ETFs is available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high speed line. Quotation and last sale information for such securities is also available from the exchange on which such securities are listed. Quotation and last sale information for options on the Ethereum Funds will be available via Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) and major market data vendors. The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on the Ethereum Funds up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Rules.
The Exchange believes that offering options on Ethereum Funds will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of Ethereum and hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with Ethereum-related products and positions. The Exchange expects investors will transact in options on the Ethereum Funds in the unregulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market,
Finally, the Exchange notes that applicable Exchange rules will require that customers receive appropriate disclosure before trading options in Ethereum Funds.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with 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 proposal to list and trade options on the Ethereum Funds will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on the Ethereum Funds will provide investors with a greater opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on an ETF based on spot Ethereum, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies.
The Exchange believes that offering options on a competitively priced ETF based on spot Ethereum will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower-cost risk management tool, allowing them to manage, more easily, their positions and associated risks in their portfolios in connection with exposure to spot Ethereum. Today, the Exchange lists options on other commodity (including Ethereum) ETFs structured as trusts, which essentially offer the same objectives and benefits to investors, and for which the Exchange has not identified any issues with the continued listing and trading of options on those ETFs.
The Exchange also believes the proposal to permit options on the Ethereum Funds will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because options on the Ethereum Funds will comply with current Exchange Rules as discussed herein. Options on the Ethereum Funds must satisfy the initial listing standards and continued listing standards currently in the Rules, applicable to options on all ETFs, including options on other commodity ETFs already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 19.3(i). Additionally, as demonstrated above, the Ethereum Funds are characterized by a substantial number of shares that are widely held and actively traded. Further, Rules that currently govern the listing and trading of options on ETFs, including permissible expirations, strike prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits (as proposed herein), and margin requirements, will govern the listing and trading of options on the Ethereum Funds.
The proposed position and exercise limits for options on each of the Ethereum Funds is 25,000 contracts. These position and exercise limits are the lowest position and exercise limits available in the options industry, are extremely conservative and more than appropriate given each Ethereum Fund's market capitalization, ADV, number of beneficial holders, and high number of outstanding shares as described herein. The proposed position and exercise limits are consistent with the Act as they address concerns related to manipulation and protection of investors because, as demonstrated above, the position and exercise limits are extremely conservative and more than appropriate given the Ethereum Funds are actively traded.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new Ethereum Fund options. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading Fund Share options, including Ethereum Fund options. The Exchange's existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading options on ETFs and ETPs, such as (existing) precious metal-commodity backed ETP options as well as the proposed options on the Ethereum Funds. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of options on the Ethereum Funds in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange's market surveillance staff will have access to surveillances that it and its affiliated equities market conduct, as well as those which FINRA conducts on its behalf, with respect to the Ethereum Funds and, as appropriate, would review activity in the underlying Ethereum Funds when conducting surveillances for market abuse or manipulation in the options on the Ethereum Funds. Additionally, the Exchange is a member of the ISG under the Intermarket Surveillance Group Agreement. ISG members work together to coordinate surveillance and investigative information sharing in the stock, options, and futures markets. In addition, the Exchange has a Regulatory Services Agreement with the FINRA and as noted herein, pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate regulatory responsibilities to FINRA to conduct certain options-related market surveillances. Further, the Exchange will implement any new surveillance procedures it deems necessary to effectively monitor the trading of options on the Ethereum Funds.
The underlying shares of spot Ethereum ETPs, including the Ethereum Funds, are also subject to safeguards related to addressing market abuse and manipulation. As the Commission stated in its order approving proposals of several exchanges to list and trade shares of spot Ethereum-based ETPs, “[e]ach Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME via their common membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group. This facilitates the sharing of information that is available to the CME through its surveillance of its markets, including its surveillance of the CME
Finally, the Exchange notes that this proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because applicable Exchange rules will require that customers receive appropriate disclosure before trading options in the Ethereum Funds
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 as Ethereum Fund options will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options and will trade generally in the same manner as other options. The Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all Fund Share options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of the Ethereum Fund options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Fund Shares that are listed and traded on the Exchange. Also, and as stated above, the Exchange already lists options on other commodity-based Fund Shares (including Bitcoin-based).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list and trade options on the Ethereum Funds will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the advent of the Ethereum Funds options trading on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that listing and trading Ethereum Fund options on the Exchange will subject such options to transparent exchange-based rules as well as price discovery and liquidity, as opposed to alternatively trading such options in the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that offering Ethereum Fund options for trading on the Exchange will promote competition by providing investors with an additional, relatively low cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with Ethereum prices and Ethereum-related products and positions on a listed options exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Set forth in this Section II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Plan amendment, along with the information required by Rule 608(a) under the Exchange Act,
The Participants originally filed the Plan with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 11Ac1-5 (later redesignated as Rule 605 of Regulation NMS),
As set forth in more detail in the Plan, Section IV of the Plan provides an overview of the procedures under the Plan for market centers to make available to the public their Rule 605 reports in the form of electronic data files that meet the requirements set forth
On March 6, 2024, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 605, which, among other things, expand the scope of entities subject to Rule 605 (including larger broker-dealers, in addition to market centers), modify the categorization and content of information required to be disclosed in the detailed execution quality reports published under Rule 605 (including by modifying the scope of covered orders subject to disclosures), and require reporting entities to produce a summary report of execution quality in addition to the existing detailed disclosures regarding execution quality for covered orders in NMS stocks.
Accordingly, the Participants now propose to amend the Plan to conform to the Rule 605 Amendments, as well as to make certain other technical updates to modernize the operation of the Plan.
The Rule 605 Amendments expanded the scope of reporting entities subject to Rule 605 to include, in addition to market centers, broker-dealers who introduce or carry 100,000 or more customer accounts.
The Rule 605 Amendments added a requirement for all reporting entities subject to Rule 605 to publish, in addition to the existing detailed monthly execution quality reports, a new monthly summary report.
The Rule 605 Amendments updated and modernized the scope of the detailed monthly reports required under paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 605, including by (i) amending the definition of “covered order” to include any non-marketable limit order (“NMLO”) (including an order submitted with a stop price) received outside of regular trading hours that become executable after the opening or reopening of trading during regular trading hours; certain orders submitted with stop prices, and non-exempt short sales orders when a short sale price test is not in effect; (ii) modifying existing order size categories to base them on a notional dollar value range with an indication that the category reflects orders that were for an odd-lot, a round lot, or less than a share; (iii) establishing four new order type categories: marketable immediate-or cancel orders, executable market orders submitted with stop prices, executable market limit orders submitted with stop prices, and executable non-marketable limit orders with stop prices; and (iv) replacing the three existing categories of nonmarketable order types with four new order types (midpoint-or-better limit orders, midpoint-or-better immediate-or-cancel orders, non-marketable limit orders, and non-marketable immediate-or-cancel orders). Further, the Rule 605 Amendments amended the content of the detailed monthly reports to require more granular time-to-execution buckets measured in milliseconds or finer; realized spread statistics calculated using additional time horizons; and new statistical measures of execution quality including: (1) average effective spread divided by quoted spread; (2) percentage-based effective and realized spread statistics; (3) a size improvement benchmark and statistic; (4) statistical measures that could be used to measure execution quality of NMLOs; and (5) additional price improvement statistics for market and marketable orders.
Accordingly, the Participants propose to amend Section VI (File Structure) of the Plan to incorporate and reflect these modifications to the scope and content of the detailed monthly reports. The proposed amendments to Section VI, discussed in greater detail below, were designed by the Participants, in consultation with market participants, in an effort to develop a detailed data file format that provides the execution quality information required to be disclosed under paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 605 in the most useful and efficient manner for users of the data consistent with current industry standards.
Generally, the Participants propose to amend Section VI(a) to remove obsolete data fields and reflect the specific order types and data fields set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of Rule 605, as amended. In doing so, the Participants made several determinations regarding the content and format of the data files that the Participants believe will make the files both more efficient to populate for reporting parties and more useful for users of the data.
First, based on consultation with market participants, the Participants believe that presenting the detailed file structure requirements in a chart format, rather than in descriptive text, would facilitate implementation by reporting entities by presenting the data fields in a format that is more usable and familiar for producers and users of structured data. Accordingly, the Participants propose to remove the existing text of Section VI(a) and instead incorporate by reference a new Exhibit A to the Plan. Exhibit A sets forth, in tabular format, each of the required data fields, including the Column # in the file, the Rule 605 reference (if applicable), the required name of the Field Header (see below), the Field Description, the Data Type (
Second, based on consultation with market participants, the Participants believe that including column headers in the detailed data files would facilitate readability and use of the information. Accordingly, the Participants propose to add field headers for each data field included in the detailed reports required under paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 605, as specified in Exhibit A to the Plan.
Third, the Participants agreed that a consistent rounding methodology would facilitate reporting by market centers, brokers, and dealers, as well make the data more useful and comparable for users of the data. Specifically, the Participants believe that rounding to six decimal places would provide a reasonable balance between providing sufficient accuracy and maintaining readability. Additionally, requiring rounding to six decimal places will help mitigate rounding errors and methodological differences in the practices of market centers, brokers, and dealers. The Participants note that rounding to six decimal places is also consistent with industry practice and other regulatory requirements, including, for example, reporting to the Consolidated Audit Trail. Accordingly, the Participants propose “up to six decimal places” as an appropriate level for reporting values as specified in Exhibit A to the Plan.
Finally, to enhance the utility of the execution quality statistics, the Participants are proposing an order type categorization that the Participants believe will facilitate users' ability to analyze the Rule 605 reports. Specifically, based on industry feedback
In addition, Section VI(b) of the Plan requires that the detailed data files have separate records for each combination of security, order type, and order size by which a market center, broker, or dealer must categorize its report under the Rule. Prior to the Rule 605 Amendments, there were five order types that could each be broken down into four size buckets, for a maximum of 20 records for each individual security. Under amended Rule 605, there are ten order types that could each be broken down into 24 order size buckets. Accordingly, the Participants propose to increase the maximum number of records to 240 for each individual security.
As noted above, the Plan has not been substantively amended since it was originally approved by the Commission in 2001. Therefore, in addition to the proposed changes relating to the Rule 605 Amendments discussed above, the Participants propose limited technical updates to modernize operation of the Plan.
First, the Participants propose to amend Section V of the Plan to modernize the file types required for the detailed monthly files required under paragraph (a)(1) of the Rule. Specifically, the Participants propose to change the file type convention for uncompressed files to “.txt” rather than “.dat” format. The Participants believe that the “.txt” format would enhance readability and compatibility of the files, as “.txt” files are supported by most operating systems and applications and do not require specialized software to enable viewing as compared with the
Second, the Participants propose to amend Section III(c) of the Plan, which currently provides that each Participant select a representative to form an Advisory Committee on Plan Amendments. Since this committee is formed by representatives of the Participants themselves, the Participants propose to rename it the Operating Committee of the Plan, in line with other, more recently adopted NMS plans. The Participants further propose to clarify that the Operating Committee will (i) monitor the operation of the procedures established pursuant to the Plan; (ii) consider any feedback or recommendations that it may receive from market participants regarding the procedures established pursuant to the Plan; and (iii) in consultation with market participants, as appropriate, recommend any amendments to the Plan as the Operating Committee may deem appropriate to correct any deficiencies or problems observed in, or otherwise improve, the operation of the procedures established pursuant to this Plan. The proposed amendment would also clarify that any recommendation for an amendment to the Plan from the Operating Committee that receives a unanimous vote would be submitted to the SEC as a proposed amendment to the Plan.
Third, the Participants propose to add new Section IV(d) of the Plan to avoid duplicative efforts in circumstances where a reporting entity subject to Rule 605 is required by SRO rules to submit Rule 605 reports to the SRO for publication intended to facilitate centralized access to Rule 605 reports. Specifically, Section IV(d) would clarify that a reporting entity would not be subject to the requirement to provide a hyperlink to its Rule 605 reports to its Designated Participant, and such Designated Participant would not be required to post that reporting entity's hyperlink, to the extent the reporting entity is required by the rules of an SRO to submit its Rule 605 reports for centralized publication on a public website. The Participants believe this clarification will mitigate the likelihood of duplication where the purpose of the Designated Participant hyperlink posting is already fulfilled through other means. However, because Designated Participants are responsible for assigning and maintaining reporting entity identification codes, those provisions of the Plan would still apply to such a reporting entity and Designated Participant.
Fourth, the Participants propose to amend Section VIII of the Plan to modernize and provide greater flexibility regarding the method by which Designated Participants assign and publish the unique identification codes assigned to each market center, broker, or dealer. Accordingly, the Participants propose to remove existing Section VIII(b) of the Plan, which sets forth prescriptive and outdated requirements for the maintenance and identification of files, and revise Section VIII(a) of the Plan to provide for both the assignment and publication of identification codes by Designated Participants. Specifically, revised Section VIII(a) would provide that the unique identification codes assigned to each market center, broker, or dealer shall be made available on a free and publicly accessible website, and would continue to require that the Designated Participants act jointly to assure that no market center, broker, or dealer is assigned a code that previously has been assigned.
Finally, the Participants propose to make non-substantive changes to (i) add a formal title to the text of the Plan; (ii) add a title to the Preamble to the Plan, (iii) update cross-references to Rule 605 and other provisions of Regulation NMS throughout the Plan; and (iv) update the list of Participants and associated addresses in Section II(a) of the Plan.
Not applicable.
After Commission approval of the proposed amendment, the Participants propose to announce to market participants the future date on which the changes will be implemented. To the extent feasible, the Participants intend to implement the proposed amendment to align with the Commission's compliance date for the Rule 605 Amendments.
The Participants propose to implement the proposed amendment on a permanent basis following Commission approval.
The Participants believe that the proposed amendment does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed amendment to the Plan would apply to all market participants subject to Rule 605 equally and would not impose a competitive burden on one category of market participants in favor of another category of market participant. The Participants do not believe that the proposed amendment introduces terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act because it would apply to all market participants subject to Rule 605 equally.
The Participants have no written understandings or agreements relating to interpretation of the Plan. Section II(c) of the Plan sets forth how any entity registered as a national securities exchange or national securities association may become a Participant.
Pursuant to Section III(a) of the Plan, the proposed amendment has been executed on behalf of each Participant in the Plan.
Not applicable.
Section II(c) of the Plan provides that any entity registered as a national securities exchange or national securities association under the Exchange Act may become a Participant by: (i) executing a copy of the Plan, as then in effect; (ii) providing each then-
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Section III(c) of the Plan provides that any recommendation for an amendment to the Plan from the Operating Committee that receives a unanimous vote shall be submitted to the SEC as a proposed amendment to the Plan pursuant to Section III(a) of the Plan.
The Commission seeks comment on the amendment. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule with respect to Professional orders transacted on the trading floor (
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective June 2, 2025.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 18 options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 17% of the market share.
The Exchange first proposes to decrease the fee for Professional (capacity “U”) orders transacted on the trading floor (
Also in response to the competitive environment, the Exchange offers various tiered incentive programs which provide Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or reduced rates where certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental incentive for TPHs to strive for higher tier levels, which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria. For example, the Exchange currently offers, among other tiered volume programs, a Floor Broker Sliding Scale Rebate Program, which offers four tiers that provide rebates on a sliding scale
The Exchange now proposes to adopt a Floor Broker Sliding Scale Supplemental Rebate Program. Similar to the Floor Broker Sliding Scale Program, the Floor Broker Sliding Scale Supplemental Rebate Program (“Supplemental Rebate Program”) applies to all products except Underlying Symbol List A,
• Tier 1 provides no additional rebate for all qualifying non-Firm Facilitated orders (
• Tier 2 provides an additional rebate of $0.01 per contract for all qualifying non-Firm Facilitated orders, where a TPH has FLEX Floor Broker Volume (in applicable products) that is greater than or equal to 2,000,000 and less than 6,000,000 contracts;
• Tier 3 provides an additional rebate of $0.02 per contract for all qualifying non-Firm Facilitated orders, where a TPH has FLEX Floor Broker Volume (in applicable products) that is greater than or equal to 6,000,000 and less than 10,000,000 contracts; and
• Tier 4 provides an additional rebate of $0.03 per contract for all qualifying non-Firm Facilitated orders, where a TPH has FLEX Floor Broker Volume (in applicable products) that is greater than or equal to 10,000,000 contracts.
The proposed rule change makes it clear that the Exchange will aggregate a TPH's volume with the volume of its affiliates (“affiliate” defined as having at least 75% common ownership between the two entities as reflected on each entity's Form BD, Schedule A) for the purposes of calculating Volume each month. Additionally, the proposed rule change appends Footnote 33 to the Supplemental Rebate Program and amends Footnote 33 to exclude FLEX Micros from the program (similar to the Floor Broker Sliding Scale Rebate Program).
The proposed Program is designed to encourage Floor Brokers to increase their order flow in all multiply-listed FLEX equity and ETP options to the Exchange's trading floor to meet the proposed tier criteria in order to receive the proposed corresponding rebate for their qualifying orders. The Exchange believes that incentivizing increased liquidity to its trading floor allows the
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposed change to decrease the fee assessed for manual Professional orders yielding fee code “WA” is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that the proposed rule change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. As noted above, the Exchange operates in highly competitive market. The Exchange is only one of several options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory in that competing options exchanges offer similar fees in connection with Professional transactions in open outcry, as the Exchange now proposes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to decrease the fee assessed for Professional manual orders in Equity, ETF, and ETN Options and All Other Index Products yielding fee code “WA” is reasonable in that the proposed change reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange's trading floor, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all TPHs. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fee will apply automatically and uniformly to all Professional orders transacted in open outcry (
Similarly, the Exchange believes that its proposed change to adopt the Floor Broker Sliding Scale Supplement Rebate Program is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that the proposed rule change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. As noted above, the proposed change reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange's trading floor, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all TPHs. The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed Supplemental Rebate Program is reasonable and equitable because it is designed to incentivize increased order flow in multiply-listed FLEX options to the Exchange's trading floor. As noted above, the Exchange believes that incentivizing increased liquidity to its trading floor allows the Exchange to maintain a robust hybrid trading environment that serves to support price discovery and increased execution opportunities in open outcry, to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to apply the proposed additional rebates under the Supplemental Rebate Program to Non-Customer order flow as the Exchange recognizes that market participants that submit Non-Customer order flow provide different, yet key, liquidity to the Exchange's trading floor. For instance, Market-Maker activity, including Non-TPH Market-Makers (“M” and “N” capacities), facilitates tighter spreads and signals additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. Increased overall order flow benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing even greater execution incentives and opportunities. Clearing TPHs (“F” capacity), Non-Clearing TPH Affiliates (“L” capacity), Broker-Dealers (“B” capacity), and Joint Back-Offices (“J” capacity) can be an important source of liquidity as they specifically facilitate the execution of customer orders, which, in turn, adds transparency, promotes price discovery and serves to attract other participants, thus providing
The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate amounts are reasonable as they are comparable to the rebates or reduced rates offered under similar volume-based incentive programs offered in the Fees Schedule.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Supplemental Rebate Program represents an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because the Supplemental Rebate Program, as proposed, will apply uniformly to all qualifying TPHs, in that all TPHs that submit the requisite order flow (
The Exchange believes that the application of additional rebates received under the proposed Supplemental Rebate Program to TPHs that submit Non-Customer order flow is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because such market participants provide unique and important liquidity to the Exchange's trading floor. Such order flow, as described above, may result in overall tighter spreads, attracting order flow from other market participants, more execution opportunities at improved prices, and/or deeper levels of liquidity, which may ultimately improve price transparency, provide continuous trading opportunities and enhance market quality on the Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also notes that the Fees Schedule currently provides for many other incentive opportunities and rebate or reduced fee opportunities for Customer orders.
In addition to this, while the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would definitively result in any particular TPH qualifying for the proposed tiers, the Exchange believes that at least nine TPHs will reasonably be able to compete for and achieve the proposed criteria across the four proposed tiers by submitting the requisite volume. The Exchange notes, however, that the proposed tiers are open to any TPH that submits the requisite order flow to satisfy the tiers' criteria. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed tiers will adversely impact any TPH's pricing or ability to qualify for other fee programs. Rather, should a TPH not meet the criteria in any of the proposed tiers, the TPH will merely not receive the corresponding rebate.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes to increase the fee assessed for manual Professional orders yielding fee code “WA” will apply uniformly to all applicable market participants. Further, the Supplemental Rebate Program, as proposed, will apply uniformly to all qualifying TPHs, in that all TPHs that submit the requisite order flow (
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the fee change for manual Professional orders yielding fee code “WA” is in-line with similar fees that other options exchanges with trading floors currently assess manual market maker transactions,
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 8, 2025, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts business under the name LCH SA (“LCH SA”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
LCH SA is a clearing agency registered with the Commission. Through its CDSClear business unit, LCH SA provides central counterparty services for security-based swaps, including credit default swaps and options on credit default swaps. LCH SA is an affiliate of LCH Ltd, through common ownership by LCH Group. LCH SA's ultimate parent company is London Stock Exchange Group.
LCH SA is proposing to revise the amount of supranational and European agency securities that clearing members may post to satisfy initial margin requirements. According to LCH SA, it is proposing these changes to respond to its members' need for increased collateral concentration limits, as clearing members seek less constrained collateral limits for high‐quality collateral. LCH SA also is proposing to revise the current concentration limit per individual International Securities Identification Number (“ISIN”) with respect to the instrument's total outstanding amount.
LCH SA currently allows clearing members to post, as collateral for initial margin requirements, supranational and European agency debt securities issued by the following entities:
• Caisse d'Amortissement de la Dette Sociale (“CADES”);
• European Financial Stability Facility (“EFSF”);
• European Investment Bank (“EIB”);
• European Stability Mechanism (“ESM”);
• European Union (“EU”);
• International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“IBRD”);
• Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (“KFW”); and
• Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank (“Rentenbank”).
LCH SA currently applies a single concentration limit calculation across all clearing members, which is no more than the lower of (i) 50% of the value of the clearing member's initial margin requirement and (ii) €500 million for the total amount of supranational and European agency securities from these issuers. Any remaining initial margin requirements must be satisfied with either cash or other eligible securities.
Rather than apply the same concentration limit calculation across all issuers, LCH SA proposes to apply individual limits to the above issuers of supranational and European agency securities. LCH SA's Collateral and Liquidity Risk Management team (“CaLM”) will establish limits for each issuer based on a market analysis of the credit and liquidity risk profile of each issuer. LCH SA is proposing to establish the limit as the lower of (i) 50% of the value of the member's initial margin requirement and (ii) the following for each issuer:
• CADES €500 million.
• EFSF €750 million;
• EIB €1,250 million;
• ESM €750 million;
• EU €2,000 million;
• IBRD €750 million;
• KFW €1,250 million; and
• Rentenbank €500 million.
As part of this revision to the supranational and European agency securities' limits, LCH SA is also proposing to apply a more conservative concentration limit per ISIN of each security type from the above issuers, from the current level of 25% to 15%. LCH SA is making this change to the concentration limit through an update to the LCH SA Knowledge Center, which is a portion of its website only accessible to its Clearing Members.
LCH SA uses collateral posted by a member to cover losses and liquidity needs in case of that member's default. Concentration of margin collateral in a particular issuer or security could jeopardize LCH SA's ability to use collateral for that purpose, if the issuer or security declines in value, or otherwise becomes difficult to liquidate, following a member default. To determine the respective limits for each security type, LCH SA assessed the Internal Credit Score (“ICS”) of each issuer, the total amount of each issue outstanding, and the weighted average of the yield bid-ask spread. LCH SA then assessed the liquidation cost for each issuer's ISIN by working with select investment counterparties to perform a hypothetical liquidation analysis at certain portfolio amounts under stressed market conditions. The results of this analysis were used to validate the proposed individual limits and evaluate the associated haircuts. Following this exercise, LCH SA determined that the limits reflected in the proposed rule change adequately incorporate the liquidity profile of the issue and the credit risk profile of the issuer, and that the proposed concentration limits have appropriately
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the organization.
The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,
After carefully considering the proposed rule change, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to LCH SA. More specifically, for the reasons given below, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of LCH SA be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of LCH SA or for which it is responsible.
As discussed above, LCH SA is proposing to establish collateral concentration limits for supranational and European agency securities from the issuers listed above. The revised limits are the lesser of (i) 50% of the value of the member's initial margin requirement and (ii) a specific overall amount for each issuer. LCH SA based its decision, in part, on the liquidation cost for each issuer in certain stressed market conditions. These changes would help maintain sufficient liquidity and should help to ensure that LCH SA is able to continue clearing and settling securities transactions and safeguarding securities and funds in the face of stressed market conditions.
As noted above, the limits LCH SA is proposing to establish will help ensure that collateral posted by a member is not overly concentrated in an issuer or security. LCH SA uses collateral posted by a member to cover losses and liquidity needs in case of that member's default. Concentration of margin collateral in a particular issuer or security could jeopardize LCH SA's ability to use collateral for that purpose, if the issuer or security declines in value, or otherwise becomes difficult to liquidate, following a member default. Because losses and liquidity demands can hinder LCH SA's ability to clear and settle transactions, the proposed collateral concentration limits described above would reduce concentration risk to margin collateral, which would help ensure the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions at LCH SA. Moreover, decreasing the likelihood that the value of a defaulting clearing member's margin collateral is affected by concentration risk helps assure the safeguarding of non-defaulting clearing members' assets by reducing the likelihood that LCH SA would be forced to charge losses to its default fund, which would then be mutualized among clearing members.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions at LCH SA, and assures the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of LCH SA or for which it is responsible, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5) requires that LCH SA establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, set and enforce appropriately conservative haircuts and concentration limits for the collateral it collects to manage its credit risk.
LCH SA currently allows clearing members to post supranational and European agency debt securities as collateral for initial margin requirements. The current concentration limit for these issuers is the lower of (i) 50% of a clearing member's initial margin requirement and (ii) €500 million. Going forward, it will be the lower of (i) 50% of a clearing member's initial margin requirement and (ii) an upper limit, ranging from €500 million to €2 billion. Because the limit is the lower of the two, a clearing member's initial margin requirement will determine the limit available to that clearing member. A clearing member can only post more than the current limit (€500 million) if a clearing member's initial margin requirement is large enough that 50% of that amount is greater than €500 million. For example, under the proposed rule change, clearing member A can post €501 million of EFSF only if clearing member A's initial margin requirement is over €1 billion; otherwise, 50% of the initial margin requirement is the lower of the two amounts.
LCH SA has determined to enhance its clearing members' ability to post such non-cash collateral, because the members have sought increased collateral concentration limits for high-quality collateral. The Commission has reviewed the confidential materials
As such, setting collateral concentration limits based on individual securities—with a lower limit based on the initial margin requirement—will help LCH SA establish appropriately conservative concentration limits, while at the same time meeting the needs of clearing members that seek less constrained collateral limits for high‐quality collateral. Accordingly, rather than expand the composition of eligible collateral that clearing members may post, LCH SA is proposing to establish individual limits for each supranational and European agency security type following an analysis in accordance with its Collateral Risk Management Policy. As noted above, this approach will generally increase the amount of supranational and European agency securities that clearing members may post as collateral, but also will allow LCH SA to tailor limits per individual issuer rather than applying the same limit calculation to all the above issuers. Doing so should enable LCH SA to establish appropriately conservative concentration limits on an individual basis per issuer, while still providing less constrained collateral limits for clearing members with high‐quality collateral. At the same time, establishing a lower per ISIN concentration limit of 15% helps ensure an overall conservative concentration limit for each security of the issuer.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
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 the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4877-DR), dated June 9, 2025.
Issued on June 9, 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 that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on June 9, 2025, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications 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 21131C and for economic injury is 211320.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4877-DR), dated June 9, 2025.
Issued on June 9, 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 that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on June 9, 2025, 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 21129C and for economic injury is 211300.
60-Day notice and request for comments
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before August 18, 2025.
Send all comments to Tamara Edge, Acting Chief, Disaster Loan Division, Office of Financial Assistance, Small Business Administration at 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416 or email
Tamara Edge, Acting Chief, Disaster Loan Division (202) 205-6674,
The Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center (CSC) will conduct a brief survey of customers to determine their satisfaction with the services received from the CSC and the Field Operations Centers (FOC). The survey will be administered via automated phone applications, email through a web-based application, or on occasion, live interviews with trained specialists. The survey results will help the SBA enhance its delivery of critical financial assistance to disaster survivors.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before August 18, 2025.
Send all comments to Desirée Illidge, Program Analyst, Disaster Loan Division, Office of Financial Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.
Desirée Illidge, Program Analyst, Disaster Loan Division, Office of Financial Assistance, (202) 205-6734,
Prior to Small Business Administration (SBA) approval of subsequent loan disbursement, disaster loan borrowers are required to submit information to demonstrate that they used loan proceeds for authorized purposes only and to make certain certifications regarding current financial condition and previously reported compensation paid in connection with the loan.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 17, 2025 Individuals can obtain copies of these OMB clearance packages by writing to the
1. Statement of Employer—20 CFR 404.801-404.803—0960-0030. When workers report they received wages from employers, but cannot provide proof of those earnings, and the wages do not appear in SSA's records of earnings, SSA uses Form SSA-7011-F4, Statement of Employer, to document the alleged wages. Specifically, the agency uses the form to resolve discrepancies in the individual's Social Security earnings record and to process claims for Social Security benefits. SSA only sends Form SSA-7011-F4 to employers if we are unable able to locate the earnings information within our own records. The respondents are employers who can verify wage allegations made by wage earners.
2. Supplement to Claim of Person Outside the United States—20 CFR 422.505(b), 404.460, 404.463, and 42 CFR 407.27(c)—0960-0051. Claimants or beneficiaries (both United States (U.S.) citizens and aliens entitled to benefits) living outside the U.S. complete Form SSA-21 as a supplement to an application for benefits. SSA collects the information to determine eligibility for U.S. Social Security benefits for those months an alien beneficiary or claimant is outside the U.S., and to determine if tax withholding applies. In addition, SSA uses the information to: (1) Allow beneficiaries or claimants to request a special payment exception in an SSA restricted country; (2) terminate supplemental medical insurance coverage for recipients who request it, because they are, or will be, out of the U.S.; and (3) allow claimants to collect a lump sum death benefit if the number holder died outside the United States and we do not have information to determine whether the lump sum death benefit is payable under the Social Security Act. The respondents are Social Security claimants, or individuals entitled to Social Security benefits, who are, were, or will be residing outside the United States for three months or longer.
3. Student Reporting Form—20 CFR 404.352(b)(2), 404.367, 404.368, 404.415, 404.434, & 422.135-0960-0088. To qualify for Social Security Title II student benefits, student beneficiaries must be in full-time attendance status at an educational institution. In addition, SSA requires these beneficiaries to report events that may cause a reduction, termination, or suspension of their benefits. SSA collects such information on Forms SSA-1383 and SSA-1383-FC, to determine if the changes or events the student beneficiaries report will affect their continuing entitlement to SSA benefits. SSA also uses the SSA-1383 and SSA-1383-FC to calculate the correct benefit amounts for student beneficiaries. The respondents are Social Security Title II student beneficiaries.
4. RSI/DI Quality Review Case Analysis—Sampled Number Holder, Form SSA-2930; RSI/DI Quality Review Case Analysis—Auxiliaries/Survivor, Form SSA-2931; Stewardship Annual Earnings Test Workbook, Form SSA-4659—0960-0189.
Section 205(a) of the Social Security Act (Act) authorizes the Commissioner of SSA to conduct the quality review process, which entails collecting information related to the accuracy of payments made under the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program (OASDI). Sections 228(a)(3), 1614(a)(1)(B), and 1836(2) of the Act require a determination of the citizenship or alien status of the beneficiary; this is only one item that we might question as part of the Annual Quality review. SSA uses Forms SSA-2930 and SSA-2931, to establish a national payment accuracy rate for all cases in payment status, and to serve as a source of information regarding problem areas in the Retirement Survivors Insurance (RSI) and Disability Insurance (DI) programs. SSA also uses the information to measure the accuracy rate for newly adjudicated RSI or DI cases. SSA uses Form SSA-4659 to evaluate the effectiveness of the annual earnings test, and to use the results in developing ongoing improvements in the process. Respondents receive a notice for a telephone review using the SSA-8553 (Beneficiary Telephone Contact) or notice for a telephone review for the representative payee using the SSA-8554 (Rep Payee Telephone Contact). To help the beneficiary prepare for the interview, we include three forms with each notice: (1) SSA-85 (Information Needed to Review Your Social Security Claim), which lists the information the beneficiary will need to gather for the interview; (2) SSA-2935 (Authorization to the Social Security Administration to Obtain Personal Information), which verifies the beneficiary's correct payment amount, if necessary; and (3) SSA-8552 (Interview Confirmation), which confirms or reschedules the interview if necessary. The respondents are a statistically valid sample of all OASDI beneficiaries in current pay status or their representative payees.
5. Modified Benefit Formula Questionnaire—Foreign Pension—0960-0561
SSA applies the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), a modified benefit formula for calculating Title II Social Security retirement or disability benefits, for months payable before January 2024. For those months, WEP affects the benefits of certain beneficiaries who received both a non-covered pension or annuity (domestic or foreign) as well as a Title II Social Security retirement or disability benefit. A non-covered pension or annuity is one that is based on earnings where the employer did not withhold Social Security taxes. SSA uses the information collected on Form SSA-308 to determine how much (if any) of a foreign pension reduces the amount of the Social Security benefit before January 2024. Respondents complete Form SSA-308 during the initial claims process (only if filed before January 2024) as well as in post-entitlement situations when someone needs to report receipt of a new foreign pension received before January 2024. The respondents are Title II Social Security retirement and disability applicants and beneficiaries who became entitled to their benefit after 1985 and who also received a foreign pension before January 2024 while entitled to their Social Security benefit.
6. Request for Business Entity Taxpayer Information—0960-0731. SSA requires Law firms or other business entities to complete Form SSA-1694, Request for Business Entity Taxpayer Information, if they wish to serve as appointed representatives and receive direct payment of fees from SSA. SSA uses the information to issue a Form 1099-MISC. SSA also uses the information to allow business entities to designate individuals to serve as entity administrators authorized to perform certain administrative duties on their behalf, such as providing bank account information, maintaining entity information, and updating individual affiliations. Respondents are law firms or other business entities with attorneys or other qualified individuals as partners or employees who represent claimants before SSA.
7. eSignature/Upload Documents—20 CFR 404.704; 404.1512, 416.912, and 422.505—0960-0830.
In the digital age, individuals expect to complete transactions online, including submitting documents and forms to government agencies. The agency offers several service-specific options for individuals to submit forms and other documents online (
SSA relies heavily on receiving physical forms, proofs, and evidence from customers and third parties (
As per the requirements of E.O. 14058, respondents may use the secure upload portal, eSignature/Upload Documents, to submit documents and webforms to SSA. As of the March 2024 national rollout, eSignature/Upload Documents contains 71 forms and allows for the electronic submission of 79 evidence types. The current process requires an SSA technician to request forms and evidence from a customer, then send an email or text to the customer with a link to upload these documents. As a direct result of SSA Customer Experience (CX) testing and feedback recommendations, the eSignature/Upload Documents team is enhancing the tool to include an expansion of forms and evidence types available for upload including additional PDFs, as well as static and dynamic webforms. While adding additional PDFs and static webforms increases the forms and evidence available for customers to upload electronically, the dynamic webforms modernize the forms for easier customer completion and submission. Dynamic webforms adapt questions based on the customer's response, ask questions in plain language and are formatted in an easily understood way. Additionally, as a further result of customer feedback, eSignature/Upload Documents will implement an enhancement that allows customers to access the Upload Documents link directly from ssa.gov or their mySocial Security account without having to first interact with a SSA technician. Once the link is accessed and the form selected, the upload process eSignature/Upload Documents includes an electronic signature functionality allowing respondents to submit forms requiring a signature. Upon customer completion of a static or dynamic webform, the respondent includes an eSignature as needed, submits the form to SSA electronically, and the system generates a printable PDF for the customer's personal records if the customer desires it. eSignature/Upload Documents serves individuals including Title II, Title XVI, and Title XVIII beneficiaries, as well as individuals who do not currently receive any benefits from SSA. eSignature/Upload Documents is limited to first-party individuals, and does not currently allow third parties, including representative payees, to submit documents on behalf of others. Technicians contact the respondent, via email, telephone, or face-to-face interview with SSA, for a business matter (
Once the respondents click on the link to eSignature/Upload Documents, the system requires them to authenticate using one of SSA's electronic access options (OMB Control No. 0960-0789), ID.me, or
To fulfill an eSignature/Upload Documents request, the system guides the respondent through one of three options:
1. Download, complete, save and then upload a PDF, or upload an evidence document, by dragging or browsing from their device and uploading the document to the eSignature/Upload Documents system.
2. Complete and submit a static webform with or without additional uploaded document(s).
3. Complete and submit a dynamic webform with or without additional uploaded document(s).
Once the respondents finish uploading their forms or documents, the system will alert them if the attempted file upload does not meet the file criteria requirements. The respondent then corrects any upload failures before submitting the documents to SSA.
After either uploading the documents, or completing the static or dynamic webform questions, the respondent must select the Submit button to complete the action, and the system will present them with the confirmation page. This page also presents an option to save or print the completed PDF. The respondent receives a successful submission email or text once they have successfully uploaded their document(s) to SSA. The system notifies the technician through the Technician Experience Dashboard (TED) when the document is available for review and consideration.
SSA also allows for the submission of certain forms signed using a commercial signature product. Some of these forms also have electronic means for submission. Under the CPAS process, individuals who use a commercial signature product to submit signed forms will ensure that the product is capable of generating an audit trail maintaining the following information in a digital certificate: (1) confirmation that the document was signed using a commercial product; (2) signature details (
Currently, SSA only accepts CPAS for the Commercial Product Alternative Signature (CPAS) process as an additional means for individuals to sign the following eight currently approved agency forms prior to sending them to SSA:
The specific forms that respondents submit through eSignature/Upload Documents (or the CPAS process) retain their existing OMB Control Numbers, reflecting the fact that the eSignature/Upload Document Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) approval is for the system we use to collect form submissions, but not the actual questions on the forms themselves. While we note the use of eSignature/Upload Documents reduces the overall burden associated with submitting forms, SSA continues to document any burden reduction associated with improved submission within the specific forms' supporting statements.
Respondents are first-party individuals who choose to use the internet to conduct business with SSA.
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 July 7, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2025-0980 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nondie Hemphill, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, at 202-267-9677.
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, the FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves entities that voluntarily follow the guidance in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-119,
Written comments should be submitted by August 18, 2025.
Please send written comments:
Shelby Geller by email at:
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 an information collection. The collection involves Aviation Maintenance Technician School (AMTS) applicants and certificate holders. The information to be collected will be used to ensure AMTS applicants and certificate holders meet the regulatory requirements prior to being certificated, and on an ongoing basis following FAA certification.
Written comments should be submitted by July 17, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Tanya Glines by email at:
The collection of information includes both reporting and recordkeeping obligations for Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools (AMTS). All AMTS applicants are required to submit an application along with a description of their facilities, the basis of their curriculum, and how the AMTS meets instructor requirements. Applicants must also provide any additional documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with part 147 requirements. Each applicant is required to establish a curriculum aligned with the Mechanic Airman Certification Standards to adequately prepare students for the FAA examinations required to obtain a Mechanic certificate and associated ratings. Applicants that are not accredited by an accrediting organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, must instead develop a Quality Control System that is submitted for approval by the FAA.
Once certificated, AMTS must notify the FAA of any additional training locations beyond the school's primary location, and where the AMTS will conduct training under part 147. AMTS are required to issue authenticated documentation verifying when a student has completed the part 147 curriculum. This documentation serves as evidence of eligibility for the student to take the FAA written mechanic tests. AMTS may also issue authenticated documentation for students who have completed only the General portion of the curriculum. For AMTS operating under a FAA-Approved Quality Control System, all records specified in the QC system must be maintained for the durations established by the AMTS. The information collected is provided to the certificate holder/applicant's appropriate FAA Flight Standards office to allow the FAA to determine compliance with the part 147 requirements for obtaining and or retaining an FAA air agency certificate.
For applicants, when all part 147 requirements have been met, an FAA air agency certificate is issued with the appropriate ratings. For FAA certificated AMTS, the FAA uses the information collected to determine if the AMTS provides appropriate training at each location of the AMTS, meets quality control system requirements, and ensures that AMTS students receive an appropriate document showing the student is eligible to take the FAA tests to obtain a mechanic certificate.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites the public to make public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by July 12, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Näleé D. Romero by email at:
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 July 7, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-2317 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jake Troutman, (202) 267-2928, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves the FAA's certification process and requirements for certificate holders and repair stations related to hazardous materials acceptance, handling, and transportation.
Written comments should be submitted by August 18, 2025.
Please send written comments:
Shelby Geller by email at:
In the renewal, the FAA plans to revise the title of this information collection to “Hazardous Materials Program Requirements” to better reflect the information collected under this OMB Control Number.
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 its review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, “Motor Carrier Identification Report,” which is used to identify FMCSA regulated entities, help prioritize the agency's activities, aid in assessing the safety outcomes of those activities, and for statistical purposes. This ICR is necessary to ensure regulated entities are registered with the DOT.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before August 18, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2025-0129 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Mr. Jeffrey Secrist, Office of Registration, Chief, Registration Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 385-2367;
All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2025-0129), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
Comments received after the comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) section 504(b)(2) provides the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) with authority to require carriers, lessors, associations, or classes of these entities to file annual, periodic, and special reports containing answers to questions asked by the Secretary. The Secretary may also prescribe the form of records required to be prepared or compiled and the time period during which records must be preserved (See 49 U.S.C. 504(b)(1) and (d)). FMCSA will use this data to administer its safety programs using a database of entities that are subject to its regulations. This database necessitates that these entities notify FMCSA of their existence. For example, under 49 CFR 390.19(a), FMCSA requires all motor carriers beginning operations to file Form MCS-150, “Motor Carrier Identification Report,” Form MCS-150B titled, “Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit Applications,” or Form MCS-150C titled, “Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report.” This report is filed by all motor carriers conducting interstate operations, intrastate operations transporting hazardous materials (HM), or international commerce before beginning operations. It asks the respondent to provide the name of the business entity that owns and controls the motor carrier operation; address and telephone of principal place of business; assigned identification number(s), type of operation, types of cargo usually transported; number of vehicles owned, term leased and trip leased; driver information; and certification statement signed by an individual authorized to sign documents on behalf of the business entity. Existing applicants will use Form MCS-150, MCS-150B, or MCS-150C to update their information in the Motor Carrier Management Information System. Applicants filing for the first time will be required to file online. Form MCS-150, MCS-150B will be used for Mexico-domiciled carriers that seek authority to operate beyond the United States municipalities on the United States-Mexico border and their commercial zones, or MCS-150C will be used by IEPs beginning operations that interchange intermodal equipment with a motor carrier or have contractual responsibility for the maintenance of intermodal equipment. The information collected from the respondents is readily available to the public. This revised ICR captures the burden of continued use of Form MCS-150, MCS-150B for motor carriers updating their registration information and for the registration of Mexico-domiciled carriers, or MCS-150C for IEPs.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that New Hope & Ivyland Railroad (NHRR) petitioned FRA for an extension of relief from certain regulations concerning stenciling and reflectorization of rail cars.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by July 17, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
John Brahaney, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-493-6134, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter received March 27, 2025, NHRR petitioned FRA for an extension of a special approval pursuant to 49 CFR part 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards), and a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained in parts 215, 223 (Safety Glazing Standards—Locomotives, Passenger Cars and Cabooses), and 224 (Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock).
Specifically, NHRR requests to extend the previous special approval pursuant to § 215.203,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by July 17, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Steamtown National Historic Site (SNCX) petitioned FRA for relief from certain regulations concerning stenciling and reflectorization of rail cars.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by July 17, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Caleb Rogers, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letters received March 20, 2025, and April 9, 2025, SNCX petitioned FRA for a special approval pursuant to 49 CFR part 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards), and a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained in parts 215 and 224 (Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock). The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2025-0047.
Specifically, SNCX requests a special approval pursuant to § 215.203,
To support its request, SNCX states that the caboose is used in excursion service, primarily within yard limits and serves as a tool of historic interpretation. SNCX adds that the caboose is operated primarily during daylight hours and operates at restricted speed.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by July 17, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Northern Central Railway of York (NCRA) petitioned FRA to extend relief from certain glazing regulations.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by July 17, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Michael Barron, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-366-7117, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letters received March 6, 2025, and May 16, 2025, NCRA
Specifically, NCRA seeks relief from § 233.9,
In support of its petition, NCRA states that locomotive 17 has had no instances of vandalism and operates at speed restrictions of 15 to 25 miles per hour.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by July 17, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Virginia & Truckee Railroad Company (VTRR) petitioned FRA for an extension of relief from certain regulations concerning stenciling of rail cars.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by July 17, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
John Brahaney, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-493-6134, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letters received March 21, 2025, and April 17, 2025, VTRR petitioned FRA to extend a special approval pursuant to 49 CFR part 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards), and to extend a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained in part 215. The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2010-0093.
Specifically, VTRR requests to extend the previous special approval pursuant to § 215.203,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by July 17, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information
Comments must be received by August 18, 2025.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Following the close of this notice's 60-day comment period, the OCC will publish a second notice with a 30-day comment period. You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection by the method set forth in the next bullet.
• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Twelve CFR 1003.5 requires the disclosure and reporting of data on mortgage loans. Section 1003.5(a)(1)(i) provides that by March 1 following the calendar year for which data are collected and recorded, a financial institution must submit its annual loan/application register in electronic format to the appropriate Federal agency at the address identified by such agency. An authorized representative of the financial institution with knowledge of the data submitted must certify to the accuracy and completeness of data submitted. The financial institution must retain a copy of its annual loan/application register for at least three years.
Section 1003.5(a)(1)(ii) provides that within 60 calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter, except the fourth quarter, a financial institution that reported for the preceding calendar year at least 60,000 covered loans and applications, combined, excluding purchased covered loans, must submit to the appropriate Federal agency its loan/application register containing all data required to be recorded for that quarter. The financial institution must submit its quarterly loan/application register in electronic format at the address identified by the appropriate Federal agency for the institution.
Under section 1003.5(a)(2), a financial institution that is a subsidiary of a bank or savings association must complete a separate loan/application register. The subsidiary must submit the loan/application register, directly or through its parent, to the appropriate Federal agency for the subsidiary's parent at the address identified by the agency.
Section 1003.5(b)(1) provides that the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) will make available a disclosure statement based on the data each financial institution submits for the preceding calendar year.
Section 1003.5(b)(2) provides that no later than three business days after receiving notice from the FFIEC that a financial institution's disclosure statement is available, the financial institution must make available to the public upon request at its home office, and each branch office physically located in each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and each Metropolitan Division (MD), a written notice that clearly conveys that the institution's disclosure statement may be obtained
Section 1003.5(c)(1) provides that a financial institution must make available to the public upon request at its home office, and each branch office physically located in each MSA and each MD, a written notice that clearly conveys that the institution's loan/application register, as modified by the CFPB to protect applicant and borrower privacy, may be obtained on the CFPB's website. A financial institution shall make available the notice following the calendar year for which the data are collected. A financial institution must make the notice available to the public for a period of three years.
Section 1003.5(d)(2) provides that a financial institution may make available to the public, at its discretion, its disclosure statement or its loan/application register, as modified by the CFPB to protect applicant and borrower privacy.
Section 1003.5(e) provides that a financial institution must post a general notice about the availability of its HMDA data in the lobby of its home office and of each branch office physically located in each MSA and each MD. This notice must clearly convey that the institution's HMDA data is available on the CFPB's website.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Notice of public meeting.
The Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council will hold a public meeting.
Wednesday, July 16, 2025.
The meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams.
Anna Millikan, Office of National Public Liaison, at 202-317-6564 or send an email to
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Internal Revenue Services announced the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, July 16, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern to discuss topics that may be recommended for inclusion in a future report of the Council.
The meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams. Members of the public planning to attend should register by July 11 by contacting Anna Millikan at 202-317-6564 or sending an email to
Agenda items to be discussed may include but are not limited to: enhancements to IRS operations; suggestions for administrative and policy changes to improve taxpayer experience and service, compliance and tax administration; information reporting issues; and matters concerning tax-exempt and government entities. The meeting agenda will be posted online prior to the meeting at the IRSAC web page,
Should you wish the IRSAC to consider a written statement germane to the Council's work, file the statement by sending an email to
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before August 18, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copy of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis at (202) 317-5751, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before August 18, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copy of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis at (202) 317-5751, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
In this action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to repeal all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants. The EPA is proposing that the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires it to make a finding that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution, as a predicate to regulating GHG emissions from those plants. The EPA is further proposing to make a finding that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution. The EPA is also proposing, as an alternative, to repeal a narrower set of requirements that includes the emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units, the carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS)-based standards for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification, and the CCS-based standards for new base load stationary combustion turbines.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124.
•
•
For questions about this proposed action, contact Ms. Lisa Thompson, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5158; and email address:
The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day following the publication of this document in the
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to submit a copy of their oral testimony as written comments electronically to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at
If you require a special accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by June 24, 2025. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.
The EPA is soliciting comment on numerous aspects of the proposed rule. The EPA has indexed each comment solicitation with a unique identifier (
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
The
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services (
In this action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to repeal all greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants. The EPA is proposing that Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111 requires it to make a finding that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution, as a predicate to regulating GHG emissions from plants in this source category. The EPA is further proposing to make a finding that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution within the meaning of the statute. The EPA is also proposing, as an alternative, to repeal a narrower set of requirements that include the emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units, the carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS)-based standards for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification, and the CCS-based standards for new base load stationary combustion turbines. In the regulatory impact analysis, we present the potential impacts of the proposal and alternative proposal in one shared set of estimates for the years 2026 to 2047, discounting monetized estimates to 2025 under 3 and 7 percent discount rates. Over the 2026 to 2047 period, the present value (PV) of the estimated compliance cost savings is $19 billion under a 3 percent discount rate, and $9.6 billion under a 7 percent discount rate for both the proposal and the alternative proposal.
With this action, the EPA proposes to resolve a decade's worth of regulatory uncertainty brought on by the Agency's novel attempts to regulate GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants under CAA section 111. The EPA attempted to restrict GHG emissions from power plants for the first time in 2015, when it issued both new source performance standards for new power plants (the 2015 NSPS)
In
The EPA's most recent effort to regulate GHG emissions from the power sector, commonly referred to as the Carbon Pollution Standards (CPS), includes standards of performance for new and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired combustion turbines and for certain modified fossil fuel-fired steam-generating power plants, as well as rules directing States to set standards of performance for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating power plants.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” which directs federal agencies, including the EPA, to review existing regulations “to identify those agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources—with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources.”
On February 19, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative.”
On April 8, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled, “Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241.”
The EPA has concluded its initial review of GHG emissions standards for the power sector, as directed by Executive Order 14154, Executive Order 14219, and Executive Order 14261, and has substantial concerns about the legal and technical underpinnings of its efforts since 2015 to regulate GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. Based on a reassessment of the legal and technical conclusions in the 2015 NSPS and CPS, the EPA is proposing to repeal the GHG emissions standards for new and existing sources in the fossil fuel-fired power plant source category.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to conclude that CAA section 111 is best read to require, or at least authorize the EPA to require, an Administrator's determination that an air pollutant emitted by a source category causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare as a predicate to establishing emission standards for that pollutant. As relevant to this action, in the 2015 NSPS the EPA listed all fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs)—combining the previously existing steam generator and combustion turbine categories—as a distinct source category for purposes of promulgating standards for GHG emissions. Nevertheless, the EPA asserted in 2015 that it was not required to make a significant contribution finding for the newly listed category because sources within the category had previously been listed under CAA section 111(b)(1).
As such, the EPA proposes to conclude that, at a minimum, the Administrator must make a significant contribution finding before issuing GHG emission standards for a new source category even if covered sources had previously been listed under a distinct category.
The EPA is further proposing to determine, in a change from the 2015 NSPS and CPS, that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution as required for the promulgation of new and existing source standards. The Agency is proposing that a determination of significant contribution must consider whether such determination would have an influence or effect on the targeted air pollution and the public health or welfare impacts attributed to such air pollution. This inquiry necessarily entails considering the policies that would inform the resulting regulation. In this instance, the EPA is proposing to find that any regulation of GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs under CAA section 111 would not have a significant effect on GHG air pollution and the public health or welfare impacts attributed to such air pollution, and that the contribution of this source category is therefore not significant, because GHG emissions from those sources are a small and decreasing part of global emissions; cost-effective control measures are not reasonably available; and because this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power. On this basis of proposing to find that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution, the EPA is proposing to repeal all GHG emissions standards for the power sector under CAA section 111, specifically the 2015 NSPS, codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT; and the CPS codified in 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTTTa and UUUUb.
Further, in the course of its review, the EPA reexamined the best systems of emission reduction (BSERs) for fossil fuel-fired power plants in the recently promulgated CPS to ensure that all regulatory requirements related to energy are grounded in clearly applicable law.
First, the EPA is proposing to determine that 90 percent CCS is not the BSER for existing long-term coal-fired steam generating units because 90 percent CCS has
Second, the EPA is proposing to determine that 40 percent natural gas co-firing is not the BSER for existing medium-term coal-fired steam generating units because a thorough consideration of the “energy requirements” BSER factor in CAA section 111(a)(1) shows that natural gas co-firing in a steam generating unit is an inefficient use of natural gas. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to conclude that 40 percent natural gas co-firing constitutes impermissible generation shifting under
Third, the EPA is proposing to repeal the requirements in the emission guidelines related to natural gas-c9and oil-fired steam generating units because it would be an inefficient use of State resources to develop, submit, and implement State plans solely for natural gas-and oil-fired steam generating units, which comprise a relatively small part of the source category and would result in few or no emission reductions under the existing emission guidelines. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to repeal the emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units in their entirety.
Fourth, because the EPA is proposing that 90 percent CCS is neither adequately demonstrated nor cost-reasonable, the EPA is proposing to repeal the CCS-based requirements for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification.
Finally, the EPA is proposing that 90 percent CCS is neither adequately demonstrated nor cost-reasonable for new base load combustion turbines. Furthermore, because it is extremely unlikely that the infrastructure necessary for CCS can be deployed by the January 1, 2032 compliance date, the EPA is proposing to determine that the phase 2 standards of performance in the CPS for new base load combustion turbines are not achievable. The contrary determinations in the CPS appear to be in error for many of the same reasons that apply to existing coal-fired steam generating units. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to repeal the phase 2 CCS-based requirements for new base load stationary combustion turbines.
The source category that is the subject of this action is composed of fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units. The 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the source category is 221112. This is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect.
The proposed repeal of 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUUb, once promulgated, would be applicable to States currently required to develop and submit State plans pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d). The proposed repeal of 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, once promulgated, would be applicable to affected facilities that commenced construction or modification after January 8, 2014, or reconstruction after June 18, 2014, and on or before May 23, 2023. The proposed repeal of 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, once promulgated, would be applicable to affected facilities that began construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 23, 2023. Federal, State, local, and Tribal government entities that own and/or operate electric generating units (EGUs) subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTTT and TTTTa would be affected by this proposed action.
In the alternate proposal, the proposed repeal of 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUUb, once promulgated, would be applicable to States currently required to develop and submit State plans pursuant to CAA section 111(d). The proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, once promulgated, would be applicable to affected facilities that began construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 23, 2023. Federal, State, local, and Tribal government entities that own and/or operate EGUs subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa would be affected by this proposed action.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed rulemaking is available on the internet at
Memoranda showing the edits that would be necessary to incorporate the changes under the two alternate proposals to 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTTT, TTTTa, and UUUUb are available in the docket for this action. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also will post a copy of the documents at
As described in this section of the preamble, CAA section 111 authorizes the EPA to establish emission standards for new stationary sources and emission guidelines for existing stationary sources under certain conditions. This provision, along with agencies' authority to reconsider prior regulations, provides the EPA's statutory authority for this proposed action.
CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate a list of categories of stationary sources that the Administrator, “in his judgment,” finds “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA has the authority to define the scope of the source categories, determine the pollutants for which standards should be developed, and distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories in establishing the standards. Once the EPA lists a source category that contributes significantly to dangerous air pollution, the EPA must, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), establish “standards of performance” for “new sources” in the source category. These standards are referred to as new source performance standards, or NSPS. The NSPS are national requirements that apply directly to the sources subject to them.
Under CAA section 111(a)(1), a “standard of performance” is defined as
When the EPA establishes or revises a performance standard, CAA section 111(a)(1) provides that such standard must “reflect[ ] the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” Thus, the term “standard of performance” as used in CAA section 111 makes clear that the EPA must determine both the “best system of emission reduction . . . adequately demonstrated” (BSER) for emissions of the relevant air pollutants by regulated sources in the source category and the “degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the [BSER].”
The EPA has generally used CAA section 111 to establish standards for emissions of air pollutants from
CAA section 111(d) establishes a framework of “cooperative federalism for the regulation of existing sources.”
As part of carrying out this obligation, the EPA promulgates “emission guidelines” for States that identify the BSER and the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the BSER. Each State must then establish standards of performance for emissions of the air pollutant at issue by covered sources that reflect that level of stringency.
Congress first defined the term “standard of performance” when enacting CAA section 111 in the 1970 Clean Air Act, amended the definition in the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1977, and then amended the definition again in the 1990 CAAA to largely restore the definition as it read in the 1970 CAA. The D.C. Circuit has reviewed CAA section 111 rulemakings on numerous occasions since 1973 and has developed a body of caselaw that interprets the term.
The basis for standards of performance, whether promulgated by the EPA under CAA section 111(b) or established by the States under CAA section 111(d) in response to emission guidelines promulgated by the Agency, is the “degree of emission limitation” that is “achievable” by sources in the source category by application of the “best system of emission reduction” that the EPA determines is “adequately demonstrated” (BSER). As explained further below in this section, the D.C. Circuit has explained that systems are not “adequately demonstrated” if they are “purely theoretical or experimental.”
After determining the BSER, the EPA sets an achievable emission limit based on application of the BSER.
In identifying “system[s] of emission reduction, the EPA has historically followed a “technology-based approach” that focuses on “measures that improve the pollution performance of individual sources,” such as “add-on controls.”
To qualify for selection as the BSER, the system of emission reduction must be “adequately demonstrated” as “the Administrator determines.” The plain text of CAA section 111(a)(1), and in particular the terms “adequately” and “the Administrator determines,” confer discretion to the EPA in identifying the appropriate system, including making scientific and technological determinations and considering a broad range of policy considerations.
In addition, CAA section 111(a)(1) requires the EPA to account for “the cost of achieving [the emission] reduction” in determining the adequately demonstrated BSER. Although the CAA does not describe how the EPA is to account for costs to affected sources, the D.C. Circuit has formulated the cost standard in various ways, including stating that the EPA may not adopt a standard the cost of which would be “excessive” or “unreasonable.”
Under CAA section 111(a)(1), the EPA is required to take into account “any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements” in determining the BSER. Nonair quality health and environmental impacts may include the impacts of the disposal of byproducts of the air pollution controls, or requirements of the air pollution control equipment for water.
The D.C. Circuit has also held that the term “best” authorizes the EPA to consider factors in addition to the ones enumerated in CAA section 111(a)(1) that further the purpose of the statute. In particular, consistent with the plain
A standard of performance is “achievable” if a technology can reasonably be projected to be available to an individual source at the time it is constructed so as to allow it to meet the standard.
CAA section 111(d)(1) directs the EPA to promulgate regulations establishing a procedure similar to that provided by CAA section 110 under which States submit State plans that establish and implement “standards of performance” for emissions of certain air pollutants from existing sources which, if they were new sources, would be regulated under CAA section 111(b). The term “standard of performance” is defined under CAA section 111(a)(1), as quoted earlier in this preamble. Thus, CAA sections 111(a)(1) and (d)(1) collectively require the EPA to determine the degree of emission limitation achievable through application of the BSER to existing sources and to promulgate regulations under which States establish standards of performance reflecting that degree of emission limitation. The EPA addresses both responsibilities through its emission guidelines, as well as through its general implementing regulations for CAA section 111(d).
Following the EPA's promulgation of emission guidelines, each State must establish standards of performance with respect to the relevant air pollutants for its existing sources, which the EPA's regulations call “designated facilities.”
While the standards of performance that States establish in their plans must generally be no less stringent than the degree of emission limitation determined by the EPA,
This section discusses the EPA's efforts since 2015 to regulate GHG emissions under CAA section 111, including the regulation of electric generating units (EGUs) and the associated caselaw, insofar as it is relevant to this action. This background is relevant because it explains the current rules that are directly affected by this proposed action, as well as the EPA's asserted legal basis for regulating GHG emissions under CAA section 111, which is implicated by this proposed action.
The EPA has regulated air pollutants from power plants under CAA section 111 since 1971, when the Agency listed “fossil fuel-fired steam generators of more than 250 million Btu per hour heat input” as a source category under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A)
In the 2015 NSPS, the Agency asserted that it was
The EPA received comments on the 2015 NSPS stating that CAA section 111 did not authorize regulation of GHGs from EGUs until the Agency first makes a finding that emissions of GHGs from EGUs contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Such a finding is shorthanded here as a pollutant-specific significant contribution finding, and such air pollution is shorthanded here as dangerous air pollution. The EPA disagreed with those comments. The EPA explained that CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), 111(b)(1)(B), and 111(a)(1), read together, authorize the EPA to regulate an air pollutant from a listed source category, subject to the standards of rationality under CAA section 307(d)(9)(A),
In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA took the additional step of “combining the steam generator and combustion turbine categories into a single category of fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units for purposes of promulgating standards of performance for GHG emissions.”
In the 2015 NSPS, notwithstanding its position that CAA section 111 does not require a pollutant-specific significant contribution finding for GHG emissions, the EPA added, in the alternative, that it was making that finding for GHG emissions from EGUs. The EPA explained that it based this finding on the volume of GHG emissions emitted by EGUs, coupled with the EPA's 2009 determination that GHG air pollution endangered public health or welfare and subsequently available information.
The 2015 NSPS promulgated standards of performance to limit emissions of GHGs, manifested as CO
The 2015 NSPS also included standards of performance for steam generating units that undergo a “reconstruction” as well as units that implement “large modifications” (
The 2015 NSPS also finalized standards of performance for newly constructed and reconstructed natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines that operate at base load and non-base load, based on efficient natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) technology or the use of lower-emitting fuels (referred to as clean fuels in the 2015 NSPS) as the BSER. The EPA did not promulgate final standards of performance for modified stationary combustion turbines under CAA section 111(d) due to lack of information.
The 2015 NSPS was challenged in the D.C. Circuit, but the case has been held in abeyance in light of the EPA's subsequent rulemakings.
In the CPP—promulgated at the same time that the EPA promulgated the 2015 NSPS—the EPA interpreted CAA section 111(d) to require the Agency to regulate GHG emissions from existing sources in the newly combined source category because the EPA had promulgated NSPS for GHG emissions from new sources in that source category.
In 2018, the EPA proposed to revise the NSPS for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired steam generating units and IGCC units (2018 NSPS Proposal).
In 2019, the EPA repealed the CPP and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule.
In 2021, the D.C. Circuit vacated the ACE Rule, including the CPP Repeal.
Several petitioners argued that the ACE Rule was invalid on the grounds that the EPA had predicated regulation of GHG emissions from existing EGUs on the new source GHG emissions standards in the 2015 NSPS, and that those standards were flawed because CAA section 111 required them to be predicated on a pollutant-specific significant contribution finding with identified standards or criteria for determining significance. The D.C. Circuit held that it did not need to decide whether CAA section 111 requires a pollutant-specific significant contribution finding for GHG emissions from EGUs as a predicate for CAA section 111 regulation because the EPA had made such a finding in the alternative. The court rejected the Petitioners' argument that the significant contribution finding was flawed due to lack of identified criteria for significance and explained that the magnitude of GHG emissions from EGUs supported the significance finding without identified criteria for significance.
In 2022, the Supreme Court in
On October 27, 2022, the D.C. Circuit responded to the Supreme Court's decision by taking steps to, among other things, ensure that the CPP remained repealed but that the ACE Rule came back into effect. Following a change in administration, the EPA informed the court that it intended to replace the ACE Rule. Accordingly, the court stayed further proceedings with respect to the ACE Rule, including the various challenges to the heat rate improvement BSER.
On May 9, 2024, the EPA promulgated the Carbon Pollution Standards (CPS), which consisted of several rules and actions.
In addition, the CPS included emission guidelines for GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units, which include the separate subcategories of coal-fired units, oil-fired units, and gas-fired units.
For existing gas- and oil-fired steam generating units, the EPA further subcategorized them into base load (units with annual capacity factors greater than or equal to 45 percent), intermediate load (units with annual capacity factors greater than or equal to 8 percent and less than 45 percent), and low load (units with annual capacity factors less than 8 percent) subcategories. The EPA finalized routine methods of operation and maintenance as the BSER for base load and intermediate load units, with presumptive standards for base load units of 1,400 lb CO
The CPS also includes standards of performance for new and reconstructed combustion turbines, organized into three subcategories: base load, intermediate load, and low load. For base load turbines, the standard consists of two components to be implemented in two phases. The first component is
In addition, the EPA revised the standards of performance for coal-fired steam generating units that undertake a large modification (
Following promulgation of the CPS, 27 States and numerous industry groups filed petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit, and many subsequently filed motions to stay the rule. The D.C. Circuit denied the stay motions on July 19, 2024,
The EPA is proposing that CAA section 111 is best read to require, or at least authorize the EPA to require, an Administrator's determination that an air pollutant emitted by a source category causes, or contributes significantly to, dangerous air pollution as a predicate to establishing emissions standards for that pollutant. In the context of the 2015 NSPS and CPS, the mandatory form of this interpretation would require the EPA to determine that GHG emissions from EGUs contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution before regulating GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. This proposal would reverse the EPA's most recent interpretation on that point, which asserted that the EPA could regulate GHG emissions from existing source categories of fossil fuel-fired EGUs and, in fact, combine those source categories into a single source category and regulate it solely on the basis of GHG emissions, without making the significant contribution finding for GHG emissions.
The EPA is further proposing to determine, as an exercise of the Administrator's judgement and based on the available evidence, that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution for purposes of CAA section 111(b). This proposal would rescind the EPA's prior, alternative determination to the contrary in the 2015 NSPS as carried over into the CPS. On this basis, the EPA is proposing to repeal all GHG emissions standards and emission guidelines for the power sector, specifically the 2015 NSPS codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT (80 FR 64510; October 23, 2015), and the CPS codified in 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTTTa and UUUUb (89 FR 39798; May 9, 2024).
As explained below, the EPA seeks comment on its proposed interpretation of CAA section 111 to require, or at least authorize the EPA to require, an Administrator's determination of significant contribution for the air pollutant under consideration. Separately, the EPA seeks comment on whether CAA section 111 requires a significant contribution finding for the fossil fuel-fired EGU source category first created in the 2015 NSPS. Finally, the EPA seeks comment on its interpretation of what it means for a source category to contribute “significantly” to dangerous air pollution, and on the proposed Administrator's determination that GHG emissions from sources within the fossil fuel-fired EGU source category do not contribute significantly to such pollution. The EPA encourages commenters to present any other relevant arguments and information, including with respect to legitimate reliance interests on the 2015 NSPS and CPS.
In this section, the EPA first explains the legal bases for its proposal that CAA section 111 requires, or at least authorizes the EPA to require, that the EPA determine that GHG from the fossil fuel-fired EGU source category contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution as a predicate for regulation. The EPA then explains its reasons for proposing to determine that GHG emissions from this source category do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution within the meaning of CAA section 111.
As noted in section III.B above, prior to the 2015 NSPS, the EPA had listed two separate source categories of electricity generating sources—steam generators and combustion turbines—under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), which requires the EPA to list a source category for regulation if it determines that the source category “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA had previously promulgated NSPS only for different, non-GHG air pollutants from those source categories. In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA combined the two source categories into a single source category—“fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units”—solely for the purpose of regulating GHG emissions, but did not otherwise revise the prior source category listings or promulgated NSPS. The EPA stated that combining the source categories in this fashion did not constitute a listing of a new source category under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A),
Notwithstanding the EPA's statements in the 2015 NSPS, its action in combining the two source categories for purpose of regulating GHG emissions had the effect of listing a new combined source category under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) based solely on the emission of GHGs by sources within the new category. In light of the CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) requirement that a source category may be listed only if “it causes, or contributes significantly to, [dangerous] air pollution,” the EPA proposes that the creation of a single source category solely on the basis of GHG emissions is justifiable only if the GHG emissions “cause[], or contribute[] significantly to, [dangerous] air pollution.”
In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA purported, in the alternative, to make a significant contribution finding for GHG emissions from EGUs within the newly established source category. Under the interpretation the EPA is proposing in this action, this finding was, and is, a necessary predicate for regulation. In a change from this alternative finding, and as discussed later in this section, the EPA is now proposing to determine that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution within the meaning of CAA section 111. This determination would preclude the EPA from regulating GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The EPA proposes to conclude that such a determination would be consistent with agencies' authority to reconsider prior decisions,
As noted in section III.B of this preamble, in the 2015 NSPS, the EPA justified its regulation of GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired steam generators and combustion turbines primarily by interpretating CAA section 111 to authorize the regulation of air pollutants emitted by sources within an existing source category without an Administrator's determination of significant contribution to dangerous air pollution, so long as the EPA had a rational basis for such regulation. In this action, the EPA proposes to interpret CAA section 111 as requiring the EPA to determine that emissions of an air pollutant from an existing source category significantly contribute to dangerous air pollution before imposing standards of performance for that air pollutant on the relevant source categories.
The EPA proposes to conclude that CAA section 111 is best read to require an Administrator's determination as a predicate for regulating emissions of an air pollutant by an existing source category. Once the EPA lists a source category for regulation under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) on grounds that the EPA determines that “it causes, or contributes significantly to, [dangerous] air pollution,” the EPA is required, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), to promulgate “standards of performance” for new sources in the category. CAA section 111(a)(1) defines “standard of performance” as “a standard for emissions of air pollutants” determined in a specified manner. Thus, CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires that the EPA promulgate standards for “emissions of air pollutants.” Under longstanding practice, “EPA undertakes this analysis on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, establishing different standards of performance with respect to different pollutants emitted from the same source category.”
Read together, CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) and 111(b)(1)(B) demonstrate that CAA section 111 directs the EPA to establish standards for air pollutants that significantly contribute to dangerous air pollution. Importantly, the source categories that the EPA is required to list under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) typically emit multiple air pollutants, but CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) does not specify the air pollutants for which the EPA must promulgate standards. These provisions must be read in context as a cohesive whole. Interpreting CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) in isolation to authorize the EPA to list a source category based on a significance finding for one pollutant fails to give independent meaning to the broader term “air pollution” and effectively reads the “contributes significantly” requirement out of the statute with respect to all other pollutants. On one hand, this interpretation allows the EPA to evade the “contributes significantly” requirement by listing a source category based on one pollutant in order to regulate other pollutants for which it has not, or cannot, make a credible finding of significant contribution to dangerous air pollution. On the other, this interpretation would trigger the requirement that the EPA promulgate standards of performance under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) for
By analogy, the Supreme Court held in
Additional context and structure in CAA section 111 suggests that CAA section 111(b)(1) is best read to require pollutant-specific contribution findings. CAA section 111(b)(3) requires the EPA to “issue information on pollution control techniques for categories of new sources
The EPA solicits comment on the interpretation that it is appropriate to regulate emissions of an air pollutant—here, GHGs—from a source category only if those emissions contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution. In particular, the EPA seeks comment with respect to the textual requirements of CAA section 111(b), relevant context from the remainder of CAA section 111, and relevant structural arguments regarding the CAA more generally, including statutory provisions not specifically discussed in this proposal.
In the alternative, the EPA proposes to interpret CAA section 111 to at least authorize the EPA to require a determination that an air pollutant—here, GHG emissions from the power sector—significantly contributes to dangerous air pollution as a predicate to imposing standards of performance. Specifically, under this alternative, the EPA proposes to interpret CAA section 111 as granting the EPA discretion to determine which air pollutants to regulate under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). As noted above, that provision directs the EPA to establish standards for “emissions of air pollutants,” but those provisions do not indicate which air pollutants within a potential source category must be regulated. The EPA is proposing to interpret this language to permit the EPA to choose which pollutants to regulate based on the significant contribution standard in CAA section 111(b)(1)(A).
This alternative interpretation, under which the EPA determines that the air pollutants for which it establishes standards are those that contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution, is consistent with the overall purpose of CAA section 111 to protect the public health or welfare from source categories that contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution. This interpretation is also consistent with the discretion that CAA section 111 confers to the EPA at each stage of the rulemaking process. That is, the EPA exercises “judgment” in determining which source categories to list for regulation under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A)); after listing a source category, the EPA has discretion in determining which pollutants to regulate; and once the EPA has determined to regulate a particular air pollutant, it has discretion in determining the type of emission controls (BSER) that serve as the basis for the regulation under CAA section 111(a)(1).
The EPA seeks comment on this alternative interpretation, including with respect to whether the text of CAA section 111(b) confers sufficient discretion on the EPA and whether additional provisions of CAA section 111 or the CAA more generally inform the scope of that discretion. The EPA also seeks comment on whether it erred in determining that it was not required to make a significant contribution finding in the 2015 NSPS or in not revisiting the issue in the CPS, and whether or not it would be appropriate to exercise its discretion here by requiring such a finding for GHG emissions from the fossil fuel-fired power plant source category.
The EPA recognizes that the proposals discussed in this section constitute a change from the EPA's approaches to statutory interpretation in the 2015 NSPS. The EPA notes that the 2015 NSPS, which asserted that the EPA need only have a rational basis for regulating additional pollutants emitted from a new category comprised of previously regulated sources, was itself a departure from the EPA's prior implementation of CAA section 111. The 2015 NSPS regulated GHG emissions from certain new sources in the power sector for the first time since the enactment of CAA section 111(b) in 1970, and for the first time specifically articulated the rational basis interpretation as allowing the EPA to regulate additional pollutants without ever having made a significant contribution finding for that pollutant.
The EPA seeks comment on this change in interpretation, including any specific reliance interests relevant to the interpretation taken in the 2015 NSPS, as carried over into the CPS, and the relative strength of the rationale for these respective interpretations. The EPA also seeks comment on whether and how the Supreme Court's recent decision in
The EPA is also requesting comment on whether its proposed interpretation of CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) as requiring a pollutant-specific significant contribution finding is necessary to avoid implicating the major questions doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court in
As noted above, CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to list a source category for regulation “if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, [dangerous] air pollution.” The EPA proposes to interpret this provision, in conjunction with other provisions in CAA section 111, to require, as a predicate for regulation of GHG emissions from a source category, that the EPA determine that such emissions “contribute[ ] significantly” to dangerous air pollution. By its explicit reference to the Administrator, this provision expressly delegates to the EPA the authority to determine when emissions “contribute[ ] significantly.”
The EPA proposes to interpret “significantly contributes” as used in CAA section 111 as conferring discretion on the Administrator based on the statutory text, structure, and background principles of law. First, the EPA proposes to conclude that the term “
Consistent with its ordinary meaning, the term “significant[ ]” is defined as “having or likely to have influence or effect: important.”
This interpretation of “significantly contributes” accords with the structure and language of the remainder of the statutory provision. CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) does not require the EPA to conduct separate analyses of contribution and endangerment or imply that significance is divorced from the policy and regulatory tools available to address an identified danger. To the contrary, Congress required the Administrator to exercise “judgment” in determining whether emissions of an air pollutant from a category of sources contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution such that emissions reductions can reasonably be required. This explicit authorization to the Administrator to exercise “judgment” reinforces interpreting “significantly” to include the Administrator's policy considerations associated with reducing emissions. When Congress intends to require the EPA to evaluate the significance of a risk separately from risk mitigation, it knows how to do so. For example, unlike key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), CAA section 111 uses discretionary language and does not purport to exclude any standard administrative considerations from the scope of the EPA's significance analysis.
Notably, this interpretation of significance is not foreclosed by the D.C. Circuit's decision in
The CAA, and specifically the factors laid out in section 111(a)(1), provides guidance on the scope of the considerations relevant to assessing whether an air pollutant contributes significantly to dangerous air pollution. As noted above, the EPA has discretion to consider statutory policies, including risk management considerations, in determining whether emissions contribute “significantly,” and CAA section 111(a)(1) includes the factors
The EPA has long interpreted a similar phrase in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to include cost considerations. That provision requires that state implementation plans contain provisions that prohibit sources from “emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to” downwind air quality problems. Based on this provision, the EPA has promulgated several region-wide rules, beginning in 1998, to limit emissions of air pollutants that affect downwind air quality. In these rules, the EPA has consistently interpreted the term “significantly” to include consideration of the cost-effectiveness of controls in determining the overall amount of required emission reductions.
As the EPA has explained previously in examining alternatives to reduce emissions of GHGs from fossil fuel-fired EGUs, there are four main approaches to controls that can potentially be used given the continued (and increasing) demand for electricity generation.
The first approach is generation shifting, which the Supreme Court held in
Thus, the control options available to reduce GHGs from fossil fuel-fired EGUs are not permissible as BSER, not adequately demonstrated, cost unreasonable, or potentially ineffective in reducing emissions. Because it is likely that the Agency may be unable to develop a BSER that would result in any meaningful, cost-reasonable GHG emission reductions, the contribution of this source category to GHG air pollution is not significant. In particular, because, as discussed below, only extraordinary emissions reductions on a global scale would have any impact on the potential endangerment of public health and welfare in this context, the EPA is proposing to determine that GHG emissions from the EGU source category do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.
The EPA proposes to conclude based on this interpretation of CAA section 111 that the significant contribution analysis is informed by considerations of national policy regarding the public welfare and the ability of the CAA section 111 regulatory mechanism to achieve meaningful reductions in air pollution that are cost-reasonable and achievable. As such, the significance analysis is informed by this Administration's national policy that energy production is essential to the public welfare. This entails continued and increasing reliance on fossil fuels to meet increasing demands for electricity generation, including to power artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies with critical implications for national security and economic growth. Such considerations fit within the meaning of the term “significant,” as well as within the CAA's broad understanding of the term “welfare” as including (but not limited to) “effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being.”
In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA took a materially different view when making, in the alternative, a significant contribution finding for GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. There, the EPA based the finding solely on the quantity of GHG emissions and did not consider the potential impacts of its policy.
In enacting and amending CAA section 111, Congress legislated against background legal principles, including principles of causation and proximate cause.
In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA assigned itself a particularly demanding analytical task by evaluating the significance of contribution to global, well-mixed air pollution that results from a combination of pollutants from a large and diverse array of sources that in turn, creates elevated global concentrations that, in turn, the Agency determined play a causal role in environmental phenomena that, in turn, the Agency determined adversely affect the public health and welfare. The global scale of that analysis and attenuated chain of causation stands in marked contrast to the EPA's prior listing and regulatory efforts under CAA section 111. None of those listings and regulatory efforts concerned air pollutants that can be connected to adverse public health and welfare impacts only when aggregated into global emissions from all potential global sources.
The threshold for significant contribution under this theory is heightened by the multiple intervening actors, uncertainties, and extrapolations necessary to draw a connection between emissions by a source category and dangerous air pollution in the form of adverse effects in the U.S. from anthropogenic climate change, as discussed further below. Under the EPA's proposed interpretation, this attenuated causal chain would require a greater volume and percentage of contribution than a more direct causal relationship to account for the degree of uncertainty and extrapolations involved. In other words, emissions of an air pollutant by a source category cannot be said to contribute significantly to a third or fourth order adverse consequence involving multiple independent domestic and global actors unless the contribution is sufficiently significant that regulation would have a discernable impact on the potential danger.
In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA found, in the alternative, that GHG emissions from domestic fossil fuel-fired EGUs “significantly contribute” to dangerous air pollution based exclusively on the volume of GHG emissions from the source category.
The EPA now proposes to adopt a statutory interpretation that is centered on the impacts and effects of statutory policy considerations in determining whether a source category's contribution is significant, rather than a purely quantitative measure of significance resting on the absolute volume of emissions from a source category.
Unlike other air pollutants that can have a localized or regional impact and direct consequences to human health, GHGs are global pollutants. The share of GHG emissions from the U.S. power sector, including CO
Aside from these relative trends, the percentage contribution of GHG emissions from U.S. fossil fuel-fired EGUs may not be a significant contribution to global GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, particularly given the discretion conferred by the term “significant.” The 3 percent contribution figure from 2022 suggests that the risks to public health and welfare attributed to anthropogenic climate change would not be meaningfully different even if the fossil fuel-fired EGU source category were to cease all GHG emissions.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed determination that GHG emissions from the EGU source category do not “contribute significantly” to dangerous air pollution under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A).
In conclusion, the EPA is proposing to interpret CAA section 111 to require, or at least authorize the EPA to require, that the EPA must determine that GHG emissions from EGUs contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution as a predicate to regulation of GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The EPA is further proposing to determine that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution. On this basis, the EPA is proposing to repeal all greenhouse gas standards for the power sector, specifically the 2015 NSPS and the CPS.
As an alternative to the proposal to determine that fossil fuel-fired EGUs do not contribute significantly to GHG air pollution and to repeal 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTTT, TTTTa, and UUUUb in their entirety on that basis, the EPA is, based on different rationales, proposing to repeal specific portions of these subparts. Those subparts are the emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units in 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUUb; as well as the requirements for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification and the phase 2 CCS-based requirements for new base load combustion turbine EGUs in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa.
If the EPA does not finalize the primary proposal, it may finalize this alternative proposal. Under this alternative, the EPA is not reopening the BSER determinations or standards of performance and related requirements for new and reconstructed intermediate load and low load fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines or for phase 1 for new and reconstructed base load fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines. Similarly, under the alternative proposal, the EPA is not reopening the 2015 NSPS or substantive elements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT. However, the EPA still requests comment on these issues in general and may, if appropriate, engage in further rulemaking at a future date if this alternative proposal is finalized.
The EPA is proposing to determine that 90 percent CCS is not the BSER for existing long-term coal-fired steam generating units because it has not been adequately demonstrated and because the costs are not reasonable. Furthermore, because it is unlikely that the infrastructure necessary for CCS can be deployed by the January 1, 2032, compliance date, the EPA is proposing to determine that the degree of emission limitation in the CPS for long-term coal-fired steam generating units is not achievable. The EPA is proposing to determine that 40 percent natural gas co-firing is not the BSER for existing medium-term coal-fired steam generating units because consideration of the energy requirements shows that 40 percent natural gas co-firing in a steam generating unit is an inefficient use of natural gas, as detailed in section V.B.2 of this preamble, particularly compared to use in a natural gas-fired combined cycle EGU. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to repeal the BSER determinations, presumptive standards of performance, and all related requirements in the emission guidelines for existing long-term and medium-term coal-fired steam generating units.
The EPA is additionally proposing to repeal the requirements for existing natural gas- and oil-fired steam generating units because it would be an inefficient use of State resources to develop, submit, and implement State plans solely for natural gas- and oil-fired steam generating units, which comprise a relatively small part of the source category and would contribute few or no emission reductions under the existing emission guidelines. That is, it would not be reasonable for the EPA to require States to prepare plans for existing natural gas- and oil-fired steam generating units if the EPA is repealing the requirements for existing coal-fired steam generating units. Because the EPA would repeal the substantive requirements for all regulated subcategories, it is proposing to repeal the emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units in its entirety.
Because the EPA is proposing to determine that 90 percent CCS is not the BSER for existing long-term coal-fired steam generating units, the EPA is further proposing to repeal the CCS-based requirements for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification. Finally, the EPA is proposing to determine that 90 percent CCS is not the BSER for new base load
This section details the rationale for the alternative proposal to repeal the emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units, the CCS-based requirements for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification, and the phase 2 CCS-based requirements for new base load combustion turbine EGUs.
The EPA is proposing to determine that CCS with 90 percent capture is not the BSER for long-term existing coal-fired steam generating units because it has not been adequately demonstrated, and the costs are unreasonable. Furthermore, as detailed in section V.B.1.c of this preamble, it is unlikely that infrastructure necessary for CCS can be deployed by the January 1, 2032, compliance date, and the EPA is therefore proposing to determine that the degree of emission limitation in the CPS for long-term coal-fired steam generating units is not achievable. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to repeal the requirements in the emission guidelines pertaining to long-term existing coal-fired steam generating units.
CCS with 90 percent capture involves the capture of 90 percent of the CO
As explained previously, the EPA has discretion under CAA section 111 to determine whether technologies are adequately demonstrated such that they are appropriate for consideration and potential selection as the BSER. In the CPS, the EPA interpreted CAA section 111, its legislative history, and the D.C. Circuit caselaw to take the position that this discretion includes a degree of forward-looking prediction on whether a technology has been “adequately demonstrated” such that it could be the BSER for a given source category.
In the CPS, the argument that 90 percent capture was adequately demonstrated relied in large part on the operation of amine solvent-based CO
In the CPS, the EPA relied heavily on the operation of carbon capture at the 110 MW coal-fired Boundary Dam Unit 3 (Saskatchewan, Canada) to demonstrate 90 percent capture. CCS at Boundary Dam has been operated since 2014. The unit uses Shell's amine-based CANSOLV® solvent technology to capture CO
This lower total capture efficiency is due to, among other things, the capture system at Boundary Dam Unit 3 typically processing less than all of the flue gas, in part to “maintain long-term reliable operation.”
Opponents of the CPS argued before the D.C. Circuit that there is a meaningful difference between instances where an emissions control device processes a “slipstream” (a portion of the flue gas) and where a control device processes all of the flue gas. They further suggested that the capture efficiencies achieved for a system processing a portion of the flue gas would not be indicative of potential capture efficiencies for a system processing all of the flue gas.
In general, Boundary Dam Unit 3 operates as a base load unit, typically operating at high capacity factors such that the unit experiences less variation in operation than a load-following unit. The CO
Around 2024, additional improvements at Boundary Dam Unit 3 were made to increase throughputs, and SaskPower noted that a greater portion of the flue gas was being processed by the capture system (up to 95 percent of the flue gas, with 87 percent capture from the processed flue gas, resulting in 83 percent total capture when operating).
Finally, availability of the capture system at Boundary Dam Unit 3 has been less than 100 percent. Between 2015 and 2022, annual availability of the capture plant relative to the EGU varied between 58 and 94 percent.
The total capture efficiency at Boundary Dam Unit 3 has been less than 90 percent because the capture system has not processed all of the flue gas, the capture efficiency is still less than 90 percent when the capture system is operating even after applying fixes, and the availability of the capture system is less than 100 percent. Considering this, the EPA is proposing to conclude that the experience at Boundary Dam Unit 3 does not support 90 percent CCS as adequately demonstrated.
To support the prior determination of 90 percent capture as adequately demonstrated, the EPA cited other applications of CCS at coal-fired steam generating units. These included CO
The EPA also cited Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) assisted projects including a pilot-scale project at Plant Barry (Mobile, Alabama) and Petra Nova at W.A. Parish Unit 8 (Thompsons, Texas). The 25 MWe (megawatt-equivalent) project at Plant Barry is not reflective of commercial scale operation.
The Petra Nova project began operation in 2017 and was put into reserve shutdown (
It is unclear whether the auxiliary cogeneration unit provided additional operational flexibility in how the capture facility was able to respond to changes in flue gas conditions. Generally, automatic controls will adjust operation of the capture facility (
The determinations in the CPS assumed that the CO
The EPA also did not account for periodic decreases in the performance of the CO
Furthermore, the EPA did not adequately account for periods of startup on the availability of the capture system and only provided a qualitative rationale for why its approach was reasonable.
To consistently achieve 90 percent capture on average, the source would have to overperform during certain hours. The EPA cited results from Boundary Dam
There are no new post-combustion CCS applications in operation that are achieving 90 percent capture over the course of a calendar year at commercial scale. Rather, some of the planned projects cited in the CPS either have been abandoned or have faced other challenges. Project Diamond Vault was a planned project to capture up to 95 percent of CO
Finally, the EPA based its prior determination on the assessment of CO
The EPA has re-evaluated the costs and associated assumptions underlying the cost analysis of 90 percent CCS on existing long-term coal-fired steam generating units and is proposing to determine that the costs are not reasonable. In the CPS, costs for CCS on existing coal-fired steam generating units were determined assuming a best-case scenario. Specifically, the cost assessment assumed sources operated at high annual capacity factors (80 percent) and that the CO
In the CPS, the costs of CCS for existing coal-fired steam generating units accounted for the IRC 45Q tax credit by reducing the direct costs to the source for every ton of CO
Under a more realistic set of assumptions that reflect, among other things, lower capacity factors and the limited availability of the IRC section 45Q tax credit,
The CPS determined that the capture, pipeline, and sequestration infrastructure necessary for the affected sources to meet the standards could be deployed by the compliance date of January 1, 2032. However, that position relied on the assumption of best-case scenarios. The equipment for the capture of CO
Because the EPA is proposing to find that 90 percent CCS is not an adequately demonstrated system of emission reduction and that the cost of 90 percent CCS for long-term coal-fired steam generating units is not reasonable, it is proposing to determine that 90 percent carbon capture and storage is not BSER for long-term coal-fired steam generating units. Furthermore, because it is unlikely that infrastructure necessary for CCS can be deployed by the January 1, 2032, compliance date, the EPA is proposing to determine that the degree of emission limitation in the CPS for long-term coal-fired steam generating units is not achievable. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to accordingly repeal the requirements in emission guidelines pertaining to long-term coal-fired steam generating units. In this proposed repeal, the EPA is addressing only CCS with 90 percent capture, because that was the BSER determination in the CPS. Whether CCS with other, lower rates of capture could be the BSER is outside the scope of this repeal action.
The EPA solicits comment on the arguments for repealing the 90 percent CCS-based requirements of the emission guidelines pertaining to long-term coal-fired steam generating units. The EPA solicits comment on its proposed conclusion that 90 percent CCS is not an adequately demonstrated system of emission reduction. In particular, the EPA is requesting input on its proposal that the performance of the CO
The EPA also solicits comment on its proposed conclusion that the cost of 90 percent CCS for long-term coal-fired steam generating units is not reasonable, including on any considerations related to taking the IRC section 45Q tax credit into account when calculating the costs of CCS in the context of a BSER analysis. The EPA further requests comment on the costs of CCS for existing coal-fired steam generating units, including on the interplay of design capture efficiency, actual capture efficiency, and cost effectiveness.
The EPA also solicits comment on its proposed determination that, because the infrastructure for CCS is unlikely to be deployed by the January 1, 2032 compliance date, the degree of emission limitation is not achievable for long-term coal-fired steam generating units.
The EPA is proposing to determine that 40 percent natural gas co-firing is not the BSER for medium-term coal-fired steam generating units. As part of determining the BSER, the EPA takes into account energy requirements.
The EPA now proposes to find the reasoning in the CPS regarding the availability of natural gas and the demand that would be associated with 40 percent co-firing natural gas in coal-fired steam boilers to be an insufficient basis for determining there would be no significant adverse consequences related to energy requirements. The EPA believes that coal-fired steam generating unit capacity and generation will continue to comprise a substantial portion of the nation's electricity supply; a number of coal-fired steam generating units are delaying or canceling their scheduled retirements in light of increasing electricity demand.
Additionally or in the alternative, the EPA proposes to find that 40 percent co-firing with natural gas is not the BSER for existing medium-term coal-fired steam generating EGUs because it constitutes generation shifting and is therefore beyond the EPA's authority to require under CAA section 111.
Finally, the EPA proposes to determine that a degree of emission limitation based on 40 percent natural gas co-firing is not achievable because it is unlikely that the pipeline infrastructure necessary can be deployed by the compliance date of January 1, 2030. In the CPS, the EPA estimated that the maximum aggregate amount of pipeline capacity needed to implement 40 percent natural gas co-firing would be nearly 14.7 billion cubic feet per day, which would require about 3,500 miles of pipeline.
For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to repeal the requirements of the emission guidelines pertaining to medium-term coal-fired steam generating units. In this action, the EPA is addressing specifically 40 percent co-firing, because that was the BSER determination in the CPS. Whether co-firing at other percentages could be the BSER is outside the scope of this action.
As noted above, in the CPS, the EPA finalized routine methods of operation and maintenance as the BSER for intermediate load and base load natural gas- and oil-fired steam generating units, and uniform fuels as the BSER for low load natural gas- and oil-fired steam generating units. Because those BSERs were consistent with what most sources were already doing (
In 2023, natural gas and oil-fired steam generating units accounted for 1.2 percent of total electric generation in the U.S. and 3.5 percent of power sector CO
Thus, natural gas- and oil-fired steam generating units represent a very small portion of the source category from both a generation and an emissions perspective. Moreover, the business-as-usual BSERs and presumptive standards finalized in CPS would result in little to no emission reductions. While the EPA is not proposing to find the BSERs or presumptive standards in the CPS unreasonable or inappropriate for these sources, the Agency believes it would be imprudent to require States to develop State plans solely for these units. The development of State plans involves a meaningful expenditure of resources by States and regulated entities, including time and money for development of engineering analyses, for conducting public hearings and meaningful engagement, for drafting permits or other legal instruments, and for getting necessary legislative or other approvals.
Because the EPA is proposing to repeal the BSER determinations and related requirements for existing long-term and medium-term coal-fired steam generating units and is further proposing to repeal the requirements for existing oil- and natural gas-fired steam generating units, the Agency is proposing to repeal the emission guidelines for steam generating units in 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUUb, in their entirety.
In the CPS, the EPA finalized revisions to the standards of performance for coal-fired steam generating units that undertake a large modification (
The EPA is proposing to determine that CCS with 90 percent capture is not the phase 2 BSER for base load combustion turbine EGUs because it has not been adequately demonstrated and the costs are not reasonable. Furthermore, because it is unlikely that infrastructure necessary for CCS can be deployed by the January 1, 2032, compliance date, the EPA is proposing to determine that the phase 2 standards of performance in the CPS for new base load combustion turbines are not achievable. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to repeal the phase 2 standards for base load combustion turbine EGUs.
For many of the same reasons described in section V.B.1.a of this preamble, CCS with 90 percent capture has not been adequately demonstrated for new combustion turbine EGUs. In the CPS, the 90 percent CCS BSER for new base load combustion turbines was based on the same CO
In the CPS, the argument that 90 percent capture was adequately demonstrated at combustion turbine EGUs relied in part on the capture plant at the Bellingham combined cycle turbine. This capture plant was only 40 MWe, processing only approximately 10 percent of the maximum flue gas volume and smaller than most combined cycle turbine EGUs that would have potentially been subject to the requirements of the rule. Particularly considering the relatively small portion of flue gas processed, it is plausible that the amount of flue gas processed by the capture system was controlled independent of changes in load of the host EGU. As noted in section V.B.1.a.i of this document, carbon capture systems with integrated steam and power that are required to process all of the flue gas at all hours may not have the same flexibility in process control that is available to capture systems processing a portion of the flue gas. The EPA otherwise cited pilot studies,
The EPA has re-evaluated the costs and associated assumptions underlying the cost analysis of 90 percent CCS on new base load combustion turbines and is proposing to determine that the costs are not reasonable. As part of the phase 1 BSER analysis for combustion turbines, the EPA reviewed the performance and costs of efficient generation for combustion turbines with base load ratings ranging from 490 to 6,100 MMBtu/h. Based on the phase 1 BSER analysis, the EPA established higher emission standards for base load turbines with base load ratings of less than 2,000 MMBtu/h. However, when evaluating the phase 2 BSER based on the use of CCS, the EPA based the cost effectiveness presented in the preamble only on combustion turbines with base load ratings of 4,600 and 6,100 MMBtu/h.
Even without factoring in the previously cited omissions, the primary costs of 90 percent CCS for combustion turbines were a best-case scenario.
In addition, when conducting the BSER analysis the Agency assumed the long term capacity factors of new combined cycle turbines would be the same as historical long term capacity factors with and without CCS (51 percent). In the primary policy case, the EPA compared the costs and emissions impacts assuming a new combined cycle turbine with CCS operates at an 80 percent capacity factor for the first 12 years and a 31 percent capacity factor for the next 18 years. The EPA compared the levelized cost of electricity of this model facility to a combined cycle without CCS that operates at a 63 percent capacity factor for the first 12 years, a 47 percent capacity factor for the next 13 years, and a 37 percent capacity factor for the final 5 years. However, the EPA did not use an energy market model to perform a dispatch analysis to support the capacity factors used in the CPS costing analysis. Assuming the full value of the
As noted above in connection with the costs of CCS for existing coal-fired plants, in the CPS, the IRC section 45Q tax credits were accounted for by reducing the direct costs to the source for every ton of CO
Consistent with the arguments presented in section V.B.1.c of this preamble regarding CCS infrastructure for existing coal-fired steam generating units, there is also limited infrastructure available to meet the requirements for the phase 2 CCS-based requirements for base load combustion turbines. While new combustion turbines do not have the additional timeline requirement of State plan development, the timeline in the CPS for the design, permitting, and installation of capture, pipelines, and sequestration for new combustion turbines assumes a best-case scenario. Furthermore, pipeline and sequestration infrastructure remain limited. In the CPS, the EPA argued that new combustion turbines could site preferentially near potential storage sites. However, this did not consider the availability of sufficient quantities of natural gas or the availability of sufficient transmission capacity to transmit power to end users for new base load combustion turbines specifically located near potential storage sites.
The EPA is proposing to determine that 90 percent CCS has not been adequately demonstrated nor shown to have reasonable costs and is not the second component of BSER for base load stationary combustion turbines. Furthermore, because it is unlikely that the infrastructure necessary for CCS can be deployed by the January 1, 2032, compliance date, the EPA is proposing to determine that the phase 2 standards of performance in the CPS for new base load combustion turbines are not achievable. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to repeal the phase 2 requirements for base load combustion turbines.
The EPA solicits comment on the arguments for the proposed repeal of the phase 2 standards for base load combustion turbine EGUs. Specifically, the EPA solicits comment on its proposed conclusion that 90 percent CCS is not an adequately demonstrated system of emission reduction for base load stationary combustion turbine EGUs. The EPA further solicits comment on the status of any projects or developments regarding CCS on stationary combustion turbines, as well as on the operation of CO
We solicit comments on this proposed action. Specifically, we are soliciting comment on the following:
• The proposed interpretation of CAA section 111 to require, or at least authorize the EPA to require, an Administrator's determination of significant contribution for the air pollutant under consideration (C-1)
• Whether CAA section 111 requires a significant contribution finding for the fossil fuel-fired EGU source category first created in the 2015 NSPS (C-2)
• The proposed interpretation of what it means for a source category to contribute “significantly” to dangerous air pollution (C-3)
• Any other relevant arguments and information, including with respect to legitimate reliance interests on the 2015 NSPS and CPS (C-4)
• The interpretation that it is appropriate to regulate emissions of an air pollutant from a source category only if those emissions contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution (C-5)
• The textual requirements of CAA section 111(b), relevant context from the remainder of CAA section 111, and relevant structural arguments regarding the CAA more generally, including statutory provisions not specifically discussed in this proposal (C-6)
• The alternative interpretation of CAA section 111 to at least authorize the EPA to require a determination that an air pollutant significantly contributes to dangerous air pollution as a predicate to imposing standards of performance including with respect to whether the text of CAA section 111(b) confers sufficient discretion on the EPA and whether additional provisions of CAA section 111 or the CAA more generally inform the scope of that discretion (C-7)
• Whether the EPA erred in determining that it was not required to make a significant contribution finding in the 2015 NSPS or in not revisiting the issue in the CPS, and whether or not it would be appropriate to exercise its discretion here by requiring such a finding for GHG emissions from the fossil fuel-fired power plant source category (C-8)
• The change in interpretation from the 2015 NSPS, which allowed the EPA to regulate additional pollutants without ever having made a significant contribution finding for that pollutant, including any specific reliance interests relevant to the interpretation taken in the 2015 NSPS, as carried over into the CPS, and the relative strength of the rationale for these respective interpretations (C-9)
• Whether and how the Supreme Court's recent decision in
• Whether its proposed interpretation of CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) as requiring a pollutant-specific significant contribution finding is necessary to avoid implicating the major questions doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court in
• The strength of this interpretation and its application to GHG emissions by EGUs (C-12)
• The proposed determination that GHG emissions from the EGU source category do not “contribute significantly” to dangerous air pollution under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) (C-13)
• The BSER determinations or standards of performance and related requirements for new and reconstructed intermediate load and low load fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines (C-13)
• The BSER determinations or standards of performance and related requirements for phase 1 for new and reconstructed base load fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines (C-14)
• The position that CPS included an incorrect accounting for the costs of control as the EPA should not be considering tax credits when determining the cost of the control (C-15)
• The arguments for repealing the 90 percent CCS-based requirements of the emission guidelines pertaining to long-term coal-fired steam generating units (C-16)
• The proposed conclusion that 90 percent CCS is not an adequately demonstrated system of emission reduction (C-17)
• The proposal that the performance of the CO
• The status and performance of CCS projects and technologies more generally, especially on projects that inform the question of whether 90 percent CCS is adequately demonstrated (C-19)
• The proposed conclusions regarding the impacts of startup and of variability more generally on CCS performance, as well as on methods to control process parameters (pressure, velocity,
• The proposed conclusion that the cost of 90 percent CCS for long-term coal-fired steam generating units is not reasonable, including on any considerations related to taking the IRC section 45Q tax credit into account when calculating the costs of CCS in the context of a BSER analysis (C-21)
• The costs of CCS for existing coal-fired steam generating units, including on the interplay of design capture efficiency, actual capture efficiency, and cost effectiveness (C-22)
• The proposed determination that, because it is unlikely that the infrastructure for CCS can be deployed by the January 1, 2032, compliance date, the degree of emission limitation is not achievable for long-term coal-fired steam generating units (C-23)
• The proposed repeal of the 40 percent co-firing BSER (C-24)
• Considerations related to the supply of and demand for natural gas, and on how the diversion of natural gas to coal-fired steam generating units would impact the energy system (C-25)
• The relative efficiency of co-firing natural gas versus using it in a combustion turbine to generate electricity (C-26)
• The proposed conclusion that 40 percent natural gas co-firing cannot be the BSER for a coal-fired steam generating units because it constitutes generation shifting (C-28)
• The determination that a degree of emission limitation based on 40 percent natural gas co-firing is not achievable because it is unlikely that the pipeline infrastructure necessary can be deployed by the compliance date of January 1, 2030 (C-29)
• Considerations related to the achievability of the presumptive standard of performance for medium-term coal-fired steam generating EGUs in the CPS (C-30)
• The arguments for repealing the requirements of the emission guidelines pertaining to natural gas- and oil-fired steam generating units (C-31)
• The rationale for repealing the CCS-based standards of performance for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification (C-32)
• The arguments for the proposed repeal of the phase 2 standards for base load combustion turbine EGUs (C-33)
• The proposed conclusion that 90 percent CCS is not an adequately demonstrated system of emission reduction for base load stationary combustion turbine EGUs (C-34)
• The status of any projects or developments regarding CCS on stationary combustion turbines (C-35)
• The operation of CO
• The proposed conclusion that the cost of 90 percent CCS for new base load combustion turbines is not reasonable, including on any considerations related to taking the IRC section 45Q tax credit into account when calculating the costs of CCS in the context of a BSER analysis (C-37)
• The costs of CCS, including on the interplay of design capture efficiency, actual capture efficiency, and cost effectiveness (C-38)
• The proposed determination that, because it is unlikely that the infrastructure for CCS can be deployed by the January 1, 2032, compliance date, the phase 2 standards of performance are not achievable for new base load combustion turbines (C-39)
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 section 3(f)(1) that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in the course of E.O. 12866 review have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis,
The estimated economic impacts detailed in this section represent the projected cost savings of the primary proposal as well as represent the projected impacts of the alternative proposal. For additional information, see section 2.3.2 of the RIA for this action.
We present the estimated present value (PV) and equivalent annualized value (EAV) of the projected cost savings of repealing the GHG standards for EGUs calculated for the years 2026 to 2047 in 2024 dollars discounted to 2025. In addition, the Agency presents the results for specific snapshot years, consistent with historical practice. These snapshot years are 2028, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045. The full benefit-cost analysis, which is contained in the RIA for this rulemaking, is available in the docket.
The power industry's compliance costs are represented in this analysis as the change in electric power generation costs due to the proposed repeal of the GHG standards for EGUs. In simple terms, these costs are an estimate of the decreased power industry expenditures resulting from the repeal of the GHG requirements for EGUs.
In table 4-4 of the RIA, we present the monetized impact estimates associated with the emissions of PM
Table 1 presents the estimates of compliance cost savings of this proposed action. This table presents the PV and EAV of these estimated impacts for the timeframe of 2026 to 2047 discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent in 2024 dollars discounted to 2025.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed action can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis,
The information collection activities in this proposed action have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. In the primary proposal, the EPA proposes to amend the information collection requests for 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTTT, TTTTa, and UUUUb. In the alternative proposal, the EPA proposes to amend the information collection request for 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUUb. Details on the amendments for these subparts are described below.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at
The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2465.06. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The ICR document that the EPA revised is EPA ICR number 2771.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The ICR document that the EPA revised is EPA ICR number 2770.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
This action proposes to repeal requirements on state governments with existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units. The information collection requirements are based on the recordkeeping and reporting burden reduction associated with developing, implementing, and enforcing a state plan to limit GHG emissions from these existing EGUs.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the Agency is certifying that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this action relieves regulatory burden on the small entities subject to the rule. Emission guidelines established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on regulated entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. After emission guidelines are promulgated, States establish emission standards on existing sources, and it is those requirements that could potentially impact small entities. Thus, the proposed repeal of the requirements in the emission guidelines will not impose any requirements on small entities. The proposed repeal of requirements for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired EGUs will relieve regulatory burden on the small entities subject to the rule. In the 2024 CPS RIA, the EPA identified 14 potentially affected small entities that own NGCC units considered in the analysis. Of these, three were projected to experience compliance costs greater than or equal to 1 percent of generation revenues in 2035 and none were projected to experience compliance costs greater than or equal to 3 percent of generation revenues in 2035. Under the proposed repeal, these projected compliance cost changes for small entities will be avoided. Consequently, the EPA expects that this deregulatory action, if finalized as proposed, would relieve the regulatory burden for facilities that, absent this proposed repeal, would be affected by the provisions from the CPS. As a result, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. 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.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, 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 specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. However, because of Tribal interest on this proposed rule and consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes, the EPA will be offering government-to-government consultation with Tribes.
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on children. The 2015 NSPS and the CPS were anticipated to reduce emissions of CO
This proposed action does not affect the level of public health and environmental projection already being provided by existing NAAQS and other mechanisms in the CAA. This proposed action does not affect applicable local, State, or Federal permitting or air quality management programs that will continue to address areas with degraded air quality and maintain the air quality in areas meeting current standards. Areas that need to reduce criteria air pollution to meet the NAAQS will still need to rely on control strategies to reduce emissions.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy over the analysis period (2024-2047) based on the results presented in the 2024 CPS RIA.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to determine the applicable volume requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for years after those specified in the statute. EPA is proposing the applicable volumes and percentage standards for 2026 and 2027 for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel (BBD), advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. EPA is also proposing to partially waive the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and revise the associated percentage standard due to a shortfall in cellulosic biofuel production. Finally, EPA is proposing several regulatory changes to the RFS program, including reducing the number of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) generated for imported renewable fuel and renewable fuel produced from foreign feedstocks and removing renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program (eRINs).
EPA is specifically soliciting comment on numerous aspects of the proposed rule. To facilitate comment on those portions of the rule, EPA has indexed each comment solicitation with a unique identifier (
Dallas Burkholder, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4766; email address:
Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels (
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your entity would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
Throughout this document the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
EPA initiated the RFS program in 2006 pursuant to the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), which were codified in CAA section 211(o). Congress subsequently amended the statutory requirements in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The statute sets forth annual, nationally applicable volume targets for three of the four categories of renewable fuel (cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel) through 2022 and for BBD through 2012. For subsequent calendar years, CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) directs EPA to determine the applicable volume targets for each of the four categories of renewable fuel in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture, based on a review of the implementation of the RFS program for prior years and an analysis of specified statutory factors.
In this action, EPA is proposing the volume targets and applicable percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel for 2026 and 2027.
The volume requirements and regulatory changes proposed in this action would strengthen the RFS program and sharpen the program's focus on a central goal of the policy: supporting domestic production of renewable fuels. Ensuring a growing
Based on our analysis of the factors required in the statute, and in coordination with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Energy (DOE), EPA is proposing the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027, as shown in Table I.A.1-1. The proposed volumes represent significant increases from those established for 2023-2025, especially after accounting for the proposal to reduce the number of RINs generated for imported renewable fuel and renewable fuel produced from foreign feedstocks.
In this action, we are proposing to specify the BBD volume requirement in billion RINs, rather than billion gallons as in previous RFS rules. To demonstrate the impact of this change, and to allow for easier comparison to previous RFS rules, the BBD volume requirements (in billion RINs) and the volume of BBD (in billion gallons) we project would be supplied to satisfy the volume requirements are shown in Table I.A.1-2. Finally, the quantities of renewable fuel we project would be supplied to satisfy the volume requirements, after accounting for the nested nature of the RFS volume requirements and the proposed import RIN reduction provisions, are shown in Table I.A.1-3.
As discussed above, CAA section 211(o) requires EPA to analyze a specified set of factors in making our determination of the appropriate volume requirements. Many of those factors, particularly those related to economic and environmental impacts, are difficult to analyze in the abstract. To facilitate a more robust analysis of the statutory factors, we identified a set of renewable fuel volumes to analyze prior to determining the appropriate volume requirements to establish under the statute. We began by identifying two volume scenarios and then analyzed the potential impacts of these volume scenarios on the factors listed in the statute. The derivation of these volume scenarios is discussed in Section III. Section IV discusses the analysis of the volume scenarios for the statutory factors. Section V discusses our conclusions regarding the appropriate volume requirements to propose in light of the analyses conducted. Finally, Section VI discusses the formulas and values used to calculate the proposed percentage standards.
The BBD and advanced biofuel volumes we are proposing for 2026 and 2027 reflect the significant growth observed in the production of these fuels over the past several years and build off the volumes already achieved in the marketplace in 2024. The proposed volumes reflect the projected growth in the domestic supply of feedstocks, primarily soybean oil, with smaller projected increases in other feedstocks including used cooking oil and animal fats. Our focus on the growth in domestic feedstocks when projecting the supply of BBD for 2026 and 2027 is in part due to the uncertainty in the quantity of imported fuels and feedstocks that will be available to U.S. markets given various factors, including the available supply of qualifying feedstocks and demand for these feedstocks and fuels in other countries.
The cellulosic biofuel volumes we are proposing for 2026 and 2027 are slightly lower than the volumes we finalized for 2025.
The proposed volumes for total renewable fuel in 2026 and 2027 reflect an implied conventional biofuel volume of 15 billion gallons each year. This is consistent with the implied conventional renewable fuel volumes in the statutory tables for 2015-2022,
The volume requirements that we are proposing in this action are the basis for the calculation of percentage standards applicable to producers and importers of gasoline and diesel unless they are waived in a future action using one or more of the available waiver authorities in CAA section 211(o)(7).
We believe that it is appropriate to propose volume requirements for two years instead of a longer timeframe due to the increased uncertainty of trying to project out further in the future, which increases the likelihood of needing to adjust volumes in the future. Adjustments to volume requirements create uncertainty in the RFS program and hinder the purpose of projecting future years, which is meant to provide certainty to the market. However, EPA is requesting comment on whether it would be appropriate to set standards for more than two years.
EPA is proposing to partially waive the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and revise the associated percentage standard due to a shortfall in cellulosic biofuel production. As discussed in Section VII, we currently project a 0.19 billion RIN shortfall in available cellulosic biofuel in 2025. As such, we are proposing to use our CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) “cellulosic waiver authority” to reduce the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume from 1.38 billion RINs to 1.19 billion RINs. The use of such waiver authority, if finalized, would also make cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs) available for the 2025 compliance year.
EPA is proposing to reduce the number of RINs generated for imported renewable fuel and renewable fuel produced from foreign feedstocks. In simple terms, we are proposing regulatory changes that would mean a gallon of imported renewable fuel, or fuel produced from foreign feedstocks, would generate half the number of RINs that the same gallon of fuel would generate if produced in the U.S. from domestic feedstocks. These proposed changes, described in Section VIII, are in response to the dramatic increase in imported biofuels and feedstocks used to produce biofuels in the U.S. observed
As described in Section IX, EPA is proposing to remove renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program (commonly referred to as eRINs), thereby making it ineligible to generate RINs. The proposed changes would find that renewable electricity does not meet the definition of renewable fuel under CAA section 211(o)(1)(J). On this basis, we are proposing to remove the regulations related to the production and use of renewable electricity as a transportation fuel, including the regulations related to facility registration for renewable electricity producers and the provisions for generating RINs for use of renewable electricity as a transportation fuel. We are also proposing to remove the definition of “renewable electricity” and the renewable electricity pathways in Table 1 of 40 CFR 80.1426 in connection with this policy change.
EPA is also proposing additional regulatory changes in several areas to strengthen our implementation of the RFS program. These regulatory changes are discussed in greater detail in Section X and include:
• Specifying new equivalence values for renewable diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel.
• Updating RIN generation and assignment provisions.
• Clarifying that RINs cannot be generated on pure or neat biodiesel that is used as process heat or for power generation.
• Changing the percentage standards equations, including specifying the BBD standard in RINs rather than physical gallons.
• Updating existing renewable fuel pathways and adding new ones.
• Adding definitions for terms used throughout the regulations and updating other definitions.
• Adding a joint and several liability provision applicable to importers of renewable fuel.
• Revising compliance reporting and registration provisions, including clarifying that small refineries that receive an exemption from their RFS obligations must still submit an annual compliance report.
• Clarifying certain testing requirements for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
• Other minor changes and technical corrections.
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) requires EPA to assess several factors when determining volume requirements for calendar years after 2022. These factors are described in the introduction to this Executive Summary, and each factor is discussed in detail in the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA) accompanying this rule.
EPA considered all statutory factors in developing this proposal, including factors for which we provide monetized impacts, otherwise quantified impacts, or provide a qualitative assessment of relevant impacts, and we find that the proposed volumes are appropriate under EPA's statutory authority as an outcome of balancing all relevant factors. This approach is consistent with CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), which requires the EPA Administrator to “determin[e]” volumes based on “an analysis of” the statutory factors and does not require that analysis to monetize or quantify all relevant considerations. A summary of our assessment of the impacts of this proposed rule can be found in Section V.H. Table ES-1 in the DRIA provides a list of all the impacts that we assessed, both quantitative and qualitative. Additional detail for each of the assessed factors is provided in DRIA Chapters 4 through 10. For this proposed rule, we used data and projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) Annual Energy Outlook 2023, which was the most recent version available at the time we conducted our analyses supporting this action.
The RFS program is a critical policy tool to support the domestic production of renewable fuels. This action seeks to get the RFS program back on track by establishing renewable fuel volumes for 2027 by the statutory deadline and aligning the incentives provided by the RFS program with the statutory goals of increasing energy independence and energy security. The proposed volumes for 2026 and 2027 reflect the significant growth potential for renewable fuel production in the United States using domestic feedstocks.
EPA is requesting comment on multiple aspects of this action, including the proposed volume requirements, our technical analyses supporting those volumes, our proposal to reduce the number of RINs generated for imported renewable fuels and renewable fuels produced from foreign feedstocks, the removal of renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under RFS program, and the other proposed regulatory amendments. We also recognize that while this proposal in an important first step in getting the RFS program back on track, opportunities remain to improve the RFS program. To that end, we are requesting comment on a variety of potential changes to the RFS program that EPA could consider in future actions that would increase the program's ability to achieve the goals of EPAct and EISA. Our request for comment includes, but is not limited to:
• A general pathway for the production of renewable jet fuel from corn ethanol, including the consideration of ways to reduce emissions for this pathway such as the use of carbon capture and storage, renewable natural gas for process energy and low-carbon farming practices.
• The definition of “produced from renewable biomass.”
• Additional program amendments to ensure that imported renewable fuels are produced from qualifying feedstocks and enhance our ability to track feedstocks to their point of origin. These comments may include input on methods and data to improve our evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with imported feedstocks such as used cooking oil and tallow.
• Program enhancements to increase the use of qualifying woody-biomass to
• An option to apply the import RIN reduction provisions to imported renewable fuel and renewable fuel produced domestically from foreign feedstock from only a subset of countries to reflect the reduced economic, energy security, and environmental benefits of imported renewable fuel and feedstock from those countries.
• Any other modifications to the RFS program designed to unleash the production of American energy.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), requires that federal agencies such as EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively “the Services”), ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the action agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for such species. Under relevant implementing regulations, the action agency is required to consult with the Services for actions that “may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat.
Consistent with ESA section 7(a)(2) and relevant implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 402, EPA engaged in informal consultation with the Services and completed a Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Set 1 Rule.
Congress enacted the RFS program for the purpose of increasing the use of renewable fuel in transportation fuel over time. Congress specified statutory volumes for the initial years of the program, including for BBD through 2012, and for the total renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel through 2022, but allowed EPA to waive the statutory volumes in certain circumstances. For years after 2022, Congress provided EPA with the directive and authority to establish the applicable renewable fuel volume requirements, as described in this section.
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) establishes the processes, criteria, and standards for setting the applicable annual renewable fuel volumes. That provision provides that the EPA Administrator shall, in coordination with USDA and DOE,
• The impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, including on air quality, climate change, conversion of wetlands, ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water quality, and water supply;
• The impact of renewable fuels on the energy security of the United States;
• The expected annual rate of future commercial production of renewable fuels, including advanced biofuels in each category (cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel);
• The impact of renewable fuels on the infrastructure of the United States, including deliverability of materials, goods, and products other than renewable fuel, and the sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable fuel;
• The impact of the use of renewable fuels on the cost to consumers of transportation fuel and on the cost to transport goods; and
• The impact of the use of renewable fuels on other factors, including job creation, the price and supply of agricultural commodities, rural economic development, and food prices.
Congress provided EPA flexibility by enumerating factors that the Administrator must consider without mandating any particular forms of analysis or specifying how the EPA Administrator must weigh the various factors against one another. Thus, as the CAA “does not state what weight should be accorded to the relevant factors,” it “give[s] EPA considerable discretion to weigh and balance the various factors required by statute.”
In addition to those factors listed in the statute, the EPA Administrator also has authority to consider “other” factors, including both the implied
• The interconnected nature of the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027, including the nested nature of those volume requirements and the availability of carryover RINs (Section V.E).
• The ability of the market to respond given the timing of this rulemaking (DRIA Chapter 7).
• The supply of qualifying renewable fuels to U.S. consumers (Section III.B).
• Soil quality (DRIA Chapter 4.3).
• Ecosystem services (DRIA Chapter 4.6).
• A consideration of costs and benefits (Section V.H).
As indicated above, the CAA affords the EPA Administrator flexibility to consider and weigh each of the enumerated factors. However, the CAA contains three overarching conditions that affect our determination of the applicable volume requirements:
• A constraint in setting the applicable volume of total renewable fuel as compared to advanced biofuel, with implications for the implied volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel.
• Direction in setting the cellulosic biofuel applicable volume regarding potential future waivers.
• A floor on the applicable volume of BBD.
We discuss these conditions in further detail below.
While the statute generally provides broad discretion in setting the applicable volume requirements for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, it also establishes a constraint on the relationship between these two volume requirements. CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iii) provides that the applicable advanced biofuel requirement must “be at least the same percentage of the applicable volume of renewable fuel as in calendar year 2022,” meaning that EPA must, at a minimum, maintain the ratio of advanced biofuel to total renewable fuel that was established for 2022 for all future years in which EPA itself sets the applicable volume requirements. In effect, this proportional requirement limits the proportion of the implied volume of conventional renewable fuel within the total renewable fuel volume for years after 2022 based on the proportion that existed for calendar year 2022.
The applicable advanced biofuel volume requirement established for 2022 was 5.63 billion gallons.
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) requires that EPA set the applicable cellulosic biofuel requirement “based on the assumption that the Administrator will not need to issue a waiver . . . under [CAA section 211(o)](7)(D)” for the years in which EPA sets the applicable volume requirement. We have historically interpreted this requirement to mean that the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement should be set at a level that is achievable such that EPA does not anticipate a need to further lower the requirement through a waiver under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D).
We recognize that, for 2024 and 2025, the volume of cellulosic biofuel available was less than the volume required, and we have partially waived the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and are proposing to partially waive the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement in this action as discussed in Section VII. Nevertheless, we have considered the cellulosic biofuel available in those years and adjusted our methodology as discussed in Sections III.B.1 and V.A and DRIA Chapter 7.1 to account for the prior shortfalls in the standards. Retroactive waivers of the volume requirements under the RFS program decrease certainty for the market and undermines confidence in the volumes and standards EPA sets, which could negatively impact investment in renewable fuel production in future years. In this action, we propose changes to the methodology used to project cellulosic biofuel volumes to avoid the need for waivers of the RFS standards in the future.
EPA has established the BBD volume requirement under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) for the years since 2013 because the statute only provides BBD volume requirements through 2012. CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) also requires that the BBD volume requirement be set at, or greater than, the 1.0-billion-gallon volume requirement enumerated by statute for 2012, but it does not provide any other numerical criteria that EPA must consider. In the years since 2012, EPA has steadily increased the BBD volume requirement beyond 1.0 billion gallons to 3.35 billion gallons in 2025. In this action, we are proposing BBD volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 of 7.12 and 7.50 billion RINs respectively.
In this action, EPA is proposing applicable volume requirements and percentage standards for 2026 and 2027. We have a statutory obligation to promulgate volume requirements under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) and are addressing that requirement in this proposed action. The statutory deadline for the 2026 applicable volume requirements passed on October 31, 2024. The statutory deadline for promulgating the 2027 applicable volume requirements is October 31, 2025. We are proposing this action with the intent to meet that statutory deadline for the 2027 applicable volume requirements and to fulfill our outstanding obligation to establish the 2026 applicable volume requirements ahead of the 2026 compliance year.
As to the percentage standards with which obligated parties must comply, CAA section 211(o)(A)(i) and (iii) requires EPA to promulgate regulations that, regardless of the date of promulgation, contain compliance provisions applicable to refineries, blenders, distributors, and importers that ensure that the volumes in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)—which includes volumes set by EPA after 2022—are met. As in the Set 1 Rule, EPA is also proposing to establish corresponding percentage standards in this action.
In summary, we are proposing applicable volume requirements and associated percentage standards for 2026 and 2027, as further described in Sections V and VI.
In this action, we are proposing applicable volume requirements for the 2026 compliance year after the statutory deadline to establish such requirements.
In this action, we are proposing to exercise our authority to set the applicable renewable fuel volume requirements for 2026 after the statutory deadline to promulgate such volume requirements under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii). We intend to finalize the 2026 standards prior to the beginning of the 2026 compliance year (
While we are proposing applicable volume requirements in this action for future years that are achievable and appropriate based on our consideration of the statutory factors, we retain our legal authority to waive volumes in the future under the waiver authorities should circumstances so warrant.
We note that, as described above, CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) requires that EPA set the cellulosic biofuel volume requirements for 2023 and beyond based on the assumption that EPA will not need to waive those volume requirements under the cellulosic waiver authority. Because we are, in this action, proposing the applicable volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 under the set authority, we do not believe we could also waive those requirements using the cellulosic waiver authority in this same action in a manner that would be consistent with CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv), since that waiver authority is only triggered when the projected production of cellulosic biofuel is less than the “applicable volume established under [211(o)(2)(B)].” In other words, it does not appear that EPA could use both the set authority and the cellulosic waiver authority to establish volumes at the same time in this action.
Proposing the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 using our set authority apart from the cellulosic waiver authority has important implications for the availability of CWCs in these years. When EPA reduces cellulosic volumes under the cellulosic waiver authority, EPA is also required to make CWCs available under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(ii). In this rule we are proposing cellulosic biofuel volume requirements without utilizing the cellulosic waiver authority. We interpret CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(ii) such that CWCs are only made available in years in which EPA uses the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume. Because of this, CWCs would not be available as a compliance mechanism for obligated parties in these years absent a future action to exercise the cellulosic waiver authority. Despite the absence of CWCs, we expect that obligated parties will be able to satisfy their cellulosic biofuel obligations for these years because we are proposing to establish the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement based on the quantity of cellulosic biofuel we project will used as transportation fuel in the U.S. each year.
We intend for the volume requirements and percentage standards for each single year covered by this rule (
We intend for the revised cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and percentage standard for 2025 in Section VII to be severable from the volume requirements and percentage standards for the other years. The cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and percentage standard for 2025 is supported by the analysis for that year.
We intend for the import RIN reduction in Section VIII to be severable from the volume requirements and percentage standards for 2026 and 2027. While the regulatory amendments in Section VIII propose to modify the number of RINs generated for imported renewable fuel and renewable fuel produced from foreign feedstocks, our basis for proposing the amendments in Section VIII is independent from the volume requirements themselves. Additionally, we do not anticipate that invalidation of the import RIN reduction would jeopardize compliance with the volume requirements and percentage standards.
We also intend for the removal of renewable electricity from the RFS program in Section IX and the regulatory amendments in Section X to be severable from the volume requirements and percentage standards. These regulatory amendments are intended to improve the RFS program in general and are not part of EPA's analysis for the volume requirements and percentage standards for any specific year. Further, each of the regulatory amendments in Sections IX and X is severable from the other regulatory amendments because they all function independently of one another.
If any of the portions of the rule identified in the preceding paragraph (
In establishing volumes for 2026 and 2027, the statute requires that EPA review the implementation of the RFS program in prior years and analyze a specified set of factors (see Section II.B). Many of those factors, particularly those related to economic and environmental impacts, are difficult to analyze in the abstract; it is challenging to assess impacts without understanding the scale of the volume changes that are the driving force behind those impacts. In light of this, we have opted to develop alternative volume scenarios to analyze for each category of renewable fuel. This section describes the factors we considered when developing the volume scenarios for analysis. The analyses of the impacts of the volume scenarios are summarized in Section IV, and the volumes we are proposing based on these analyses and a review of the implementation of the RFS program to date are described in Section V. Note that neither of the volume scenarios we developed for analytical purposes include the impacts of the proposed import RIN reduction provisions described in Section VIII.
To develop the alternative volume scenarios for analysis, we first assessed two fundamental factors: (1) The potential supply of these fuels from both imports and domestic production; and (2) The ability for these fuels to be used as qualifying transportation fuel in the United States. Throughout this preamble, we use the term “supply” of renewable fuel to refer to the quantity of qualifying renewable fuel that can be used as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in the U.S. Unless otherwise noted, all historical data on the supply of renewable fuel is based on data from the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS). The projected domestic production and importation of renewable fuel and the use of renewable fuel as transportation fuel closely align with two of the explicit statutory criteria: expected annual rate of future commercial production of renewable fuel and sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable fuels. For cellulosic biofuel and conventional renewable fuel, the volume scenarios we chose to analyze are equal to the projected volumes of these fuels we project will be used as qualifying transportation fuel in 2026 and 2027. Our projections of the use of these fuels
For non-cellulosic advanced biofuel (including BBD and other advanced biofuel), the projected supply of these fuels in future years is highly dependent on the incentives for these fuels provided by the RFS program, other state and federal incentives in the U.S., and actions by foreign countries. Unlike cellulosic biofuel and conventional renewable fuel, we do not expect that the supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel will be limited by the ability for the market to use these fuels as qualifying transportation fuel. Instead, we project that the available supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel will depend on a number of interrelated factors, including the supply of feedstocks to produce these fuels, demand for these feedstocks in non-biofuel markets, and the available incentives for the production and use of these fuels in the U.S. and other countries. Further, unlike cellulosic biofuel and conventional renewable fuel, which are primarily produced from a single feedstock (biogas and corn starch, respectively), non-cellulosic advanced biofuel can be produced from a variety of different feedstocks, and the projected impacts of the production of these fuels can vary depending on the feedstock used to produce the fuel. Considering these complexities, we have developed two different volume scenarios of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel for analysis rather that attempt to identify a single volume scenario for the projected supply of these fuels. These assessments are described in greater detail in Sections III.B and C and DRIA Chapter 6.
We acknowledge that we are adopting a slightly different approach to developing the volume scenarios for analysis in this action than we did in the Set 1 Rule, in which EPA first identified “candidate volumes” to analyze for each category of renewable fuel. These candidate volumes were based primarily on a consideration of supply-related factors, with a consideration of other relevant factors as noted in the Set 1 Rule. The approach taken in this action, in which multiple volume scenarios are analyzed, is designed to provide additional information about the potential impacts of a broader range of renewable fuel volume requirements.
The volume scenarios we analyzed for this action, as well as the data that informed these volume scenarios, can be found in Sections III.B and C. Sections III.D and E describe the baselines we considered as points of reference for the analysis of the other statutory factors (
In Section II.D we discuss our statutory authority to establish RFS volume requirements and percentage standards for multiple years in a single action. As discussed in that section, we are proposing to establish volume requirements and percentage standards for two years: 2026 and 2027. When developing the scenarios described in this section, however, EPA had not yet determined either the number of years for which to establish volumes in this action or the exact levels of the proposed volumes. To preserve the opportunity to consider proposing an action that would establish volumes for a greater number of years, we developed scenarios for analysis through 2030. We also assessed a range of potential fuel volumes to provide stakeholders with a more comprehensive sense for the potential impacts of different volume levels. The volume scenarios discussed in this section, as well as the results of our analysis of these scenarios discussed in Section IV, therefore consider a range of renewable fuel volumes through 2030. More information on the projected impacts of the renewable fuel volume requirements we are proposing for 2026 and 2027 can be found in Section V and the DRIA.
CAA section 211(o)(1)(E) defines cellulosic biofuel as renewable fuel derived from any cellulose, hemi-cellulose, or lignin that has lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are at least 60 percent less than the baseline lifecycle GHG emissions. Since the inception of the RFS program, cellulosic biofuel production has steadily increased, reaching record levels in 2024. This growth has primarily been driven by biogas-derived CNG/LNG, although small volumes of liquid cellulosic biofuels, particularly ethanol produced from corn kernel fiber (CKF), have also played a contributing role. In this section, we discuss our analysis for projecting the production of qualifying cellulosic biofuel for 2026-2030, along with key uncertainties associated with these estimates. Additional details on our volume projections for cellulosic biofuel can be found in DRIA Chapter 7.1.
Biogas-derived CNG/LNG from qualifying sources must first be collected and upgraded for vehicle use. The upgraded process varies depending on the final application but typically involves removing undesirable components and contaminants from the raw biogas. Biogas that has been upgraded and distributed through a closed distribution system, either as a biointermediate or for the production of renewable fuel, is defined as “treated biogas,” whereas biogas that has been upgraded to be suitable for injection into the commercial natural gas pipeline system and is used to produce renewable fuel is defined as “renewable natural gas” (RNG).
To project future volumes of biogas-derived CNG/LNG, we analyzed two limiting factors: the estimated volume of RNG that could be produced or captured and the estimated amount of biogas-derived CNG/LNG that could be consumed as a transportation fuel. Our analysis indicates that consumption (
To estimate consumption, we developed a projection of total CNG/LNG transportation use based on vehicle sector data, including fuel consumption rates, vehicle miles traveled, and fuel efficiency. Because biogas-derived CNG/LNG can generate RINs only when used as a transportation fuel, total CNG/LNG consumption—whether fossil- or biogas-derived—represents the upper volume limit for biogas-derived CNG/LNG RIN generation. However, full replacement of total CNG/LNG usage with biogas-derived fuel is unlikely due to infrastructure limitations, costs, and other challenges. To account for this, we applied an efficiency factor to estimate the portion of total CNG/LNG consumption that could realistically be met with biogas-derived fuel and, in turn, the number of cellulosic RINs that could be generated. Based on data from California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program, we assume that even in a fully saturated market,
Initial evidence of this shift towards a consumption-limited baseline is already apparent. In 2023, RNG volumes were insufficient to meet the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement established in the Set 1 Rule. This shortfall resulted in a 0.09 billion cellulosic RIN deficit carried forward from 2023 into 2024. For 2024, RNG production—and hence cellulosic RIN generation—again fell short of the required volume. This led EPA to propose a partial waiver of the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement.
As a means of cross-checking this expected limitation on cellulosic RIN generation, we also projected future RNG production. To estimate this, we used an industry-wide projection methodology that has been employed in the RFS standard-setting rules since 2018. This methodology applies an industry-wide year-over-year growth rate to the current biogas production rate. Specifically, we used RIN generation data from the most recent 24 months and multiplied the observed growth rate during that period by the most recent full calendar year of data available. This growth rate was then repeatedly applied to each progressive year to project future production. This approach was previously used in the 2018,
While RNG production is not expected to be a limiting factor in determining volumes, the future production of RNG will ultimately depend on market demand. Because of this, there is significant uncertainty overall for the production of RNG. One notable source of uncertainty is the potential for significant competing demands for RNG, such as to produce RNG-based ammonia (
From our analysis of both RNG consumption and production, we believe that cellulosic RIN generation from biogas-derived CNG/LNG during 2026-2030 will be constrained by the total usage of CNG/LNG as transportation fuel (
Several technologies are currently being developed to produce liquid fuels from cellulosic biomass. However, most of these technologies are unlikely to yield significant volumes of cellulosic biofuel by 2030. One notable exception is the production of ethanol from CKF, for which several companies have developed processes. Many of these processes involve co-processing of both the starch and cellulosic components of the corn kernel. However, to be eligible for generating cellulosic RINs, facilities must accurately determine the amount of ethanol produced specifically from the cellulosic portion using approved methodologies. This requires the ability to reliably and precisely calculate the ethanol derived from the cellulosic component, distinct from the starch portion of the corn kernel. In September 2022, EPA issued updated guidance on analytical methods that could be used to quantify the amount of ethanol produced when co-processing CKF and corn starch.
EPA has also had substantive discussions with technology providers intending to use analytical methods consistent with this guidance, as well as with owners of facilities registered as cellulosic biofuel producers using these methods. Based on information from these technology providers, EPA believes that cellulosic ethanol production from CKF could be feasible at all existing corn ethanol facilities, with minimal additional processing units or modifications. To generate cellulosic RINs for ethanol produced from CKF, a facility would need to demonstrate the converted fraction consistent with appropriate test methods. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that 90 percent of facilities will produce cellulosic ethanol over this period due to potential facility-specific challenges that may prevent 100 percent adoption.
Additionally, while technology providers have indicated that using analytical methods consistent with EPA
The projected production of cellulosic ethanol from CKF, as shown in Table III.B.1.b-1, is based on projections of total corn ethanol production, with a 90 percent facility participation rate and a 1 percent conversion efficiency applied.
We expect that commercial scale production of cellulosic biofuel in the U.S. beyond CNG/LNG derived from biogas and ethanol produced from CKF will be very limited in 2026-2030. There are several cellulosic biofuel production facilities in various stages of development, construction, and commissioning that may be capable of producing commercial scale volumes of cellulosic biofuel by 2030. These facilities primarily focus on producing cellulosic hydrocarbons from feedstocks such as separated municipal solid waste (MSW), precommercial thinnings, and tree residues, which can be blended into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Since no parties have achieved consistent production of liquid cellulosic biofuel in the U.S. or consistently exported liquid cellulosic biofuel to the U.S., production and import of liquid cellulosic biofuel in 2026-2030 is highly uncertain and likely to be relatively small. For the volume scenarios we are analyzing, we have projected no production of these fuels in 2026-2030.
CAA section 211(o)(1)(D) defines biomass-based diesel as renewable fuel that is biodiesel and that has GHG emissions reductions of at least 50 percent from the baseline. It also excludes biodiesel that is co-processed with petroleum feedstocks. The BBD standard is nested within the advanced biofuel standard. Historically, the BBD supply under the RFS program has exceeded the BBD standard, with the additional supply used by obligated parties to meet their advanced biofuel volume requirements. Thus, the advanced biofuel standard has incentivized the use of BBD beyond just the BBD standard.
Since 2010, when the BBD volume requirement was added to the RFS program, production of BBD has generally increased annually. The volume of BBD supplied in any given year is influenced by a number of factors, including: production capacity; feedstock availability and cost; available incentives including the RFS program; the availability of imported BBD; the demand for BBD (and feedstocks used to produce BBD) in foreign markets; and several other economic factors.
Most renewable fuel that qualifies as BBD is biodiesel or renewable diesel. Both of these fuels are replacements for petroleum diesel and are produced from the same lipid-based feedstocks, a diverse category that includes animal fats, used cooking oil, and vegetable oil feedstocks. Biodiesel and renewable diesel differ in their production processes and chemical composition. Biodiesel is an oxygenated fuel that is generally produced using a transesterification process. Renewable diesel, on the other hand, is a hydrocarbon fuel that closely resembles petroleum diesel and that is generally produced by hydrotreating renewable feedstocks. From 2010-2018, the vast majority of BBD supplied to the U.S. was biodiesel. Production and imports of renewable diesel emerged in the U.S. in the early 2010s. Market share for renewable diesel began a steady upward trend in 2019, and U.S. domestic supply of these fuels has increased significantly over the past several years. The supply of biodiesel has been relatively stable since 2016 amidst the expansion of renewable diesel supply.
In 2023, the supply of renewable diesel exceeded the supply of biodiesel for the first time (see Figure III.B.2-1). Unlike biodiesel, which is often produced at relatively small facilities, renewable diesel is generally produced at large facilities. While some renewable fuel producers have built new production facilities, much of the renewable diesel produced in the U.S. uses petroleum refining infrastructure that has been converted to produce renewable diesel. Because renewable diesel is more chemically similar to petroleum, it is generally not subject to the same blending limits as biodiesel. This has allowed very large volumes of renewable diesel to be supplied to California and other states with incentives for biofuel use in addition to the incentives provided by the RFS program. In future years we expect to continue to see large increases in the supply of renewable diesel due to the advantages in the economy of scale and the ability to access markets with higher incentives, and a relatively steady supply of biodiesel from established facilities with favorable local markets.
There are also small volumes of renewable jet fuel and heating oil that qualify as BBD.
A tax credit for renewable jet fuel for tax years 2023 and 2024, often referred to as the “sustainable aviation fuel credit” or “40B credit,” may have resulted in increasing volumes of renewable jet fuel produced from existing renewable diesel production facilities. Another low carbon transportation fuel tax credit, the “clean fuel production credit” or “45Z credit,” is available for tax years 2025-2027, and provides up to $1.75 per gallon of renewable jet fuel, provided the relevant wage and apprenticeship requirements are met by the producer. The 45Z credit may provide continued support for renewable jet fuel production. Renewable jet fuel production from existing renewable diesel facilities, however, would likely result in a decrease in renewable diesel production, with little or no net change in their overall production of RIN-generating fuels.
In this rule we have not separately projected growth in renewable jet fuel production, but we recognize that some of the projected growth in renewable diesel production may instead be renewable jet fuel from the same production facilities. Other renewable jet fuel production technologies and production facilities (discussed briefly in Section III.B.2.b) also being developed could enable the future production of renewable jet fuel from new facilities and feedstocks that are not expected to impact renewable diesel production.
The remainder of this section provides historical data on biodiesel and renewable diesel production and production capacity, briefly discusses potential feedstock limitations for
For most of the history of the RFS program, the largest volume of BBD and advanced biofuel supplied in the program each year have been from biodiesel. Domestic biodiesel production increased from approximately 1.3 billion gallons in 2014 to approximately 1.8 billion gallons in 2018. Since 2018, domestic biodiesel production decreased slightly, to approximately 1.7 billion gallons in 2024.
Available data suggests that there is significant unused biodiesel production capacity in the U.S., and thus domestic biodiesel production could grow without the need to invest in additional production capacity. Data reported by EIA shows that domestic biodiesel production capacity in November 2024 was approximately 2.00 billion gallons per year, roughly 0.3 billion gallons more than was utilized.
EPA separately collects facility capacity information through the RFS program facility registration process. This data includes both facilities that are currently producing biodiesel and those that are inactive. EPA's data shows a total domestic biodiesel production capacity of 2.9 billion gallons per year in April 2025, of which 2.6 billion gallons per year was at biodiesel facilities that generated RINs in 2024.
Renewable diesel and renewable jet fuel are currently produced using the same feedstocks and very similar production technologies, and in most cases are produced at the same production facilities. For example, Montana Renewables produced both renewable diesel and renewable jet fuel at their Great Falls, Montana facility in 2024.
In the near term, we expect that any increase in renewable jet fuel production will result in a corresponding decrease in renewable diesel production. We recognize that new technologies are being developed to produce renewable jet fuel from a wider variety of feedstocks, some of which are not suitable for use in the hydrotreating process that dominates renewable diesel production. For example, several companies are developing new technologies intended to produce renewable jet fuel from ethanol or other alcohols, through a technology often referred to as the “alcohol-to-jet” (or “ATJ”) process. To date EPA has not approved a generally applicable pathway for these fuels, but we have approved a facility specific pathway for the production of renewable jet fuel from ethanol to generate BBD RINs.
Renewable diesel has historically been produced and imported in smaller quantities than biodiesel, as shown in Figure III.B.2-1. In recent years, however, domestic production of renewable diesel has increased significantly. Renewable diesel production facilities generally have higher capital costs and production costs relative to biodiesel, which likely accounts for the historically higher volumes of biodiesel production relative to renewable diesel production prior to 2023. The higher cost of renewable diesel production can largely be offset through the benefits of economies of scale, since renewable diesel facilities tend to be much larger than biodiesel production facilities.
More importantly, because renewable diesel more closely resembles petroleum diesel than biodiesel (both renewable diesel and petroleum diesel are hydrocarbons while biodiesel is a methyl-ester), renewable diesel can be blended at much higher concentrations with diesel than biodiesel (it is for this reason that renewable diesel is sometimes referred to as a “drop-in” fuel). This allows renewable diesel to more easily be blended into diesel at higher rates and enables renewable diesel producers to sell greater volumes of renewable diesel in California, benefiting from the LCFS credits in California in addition to RFS incentives and the federal tax credit.
Total domestic renewable diesel production capacity has increased significantly in recent years from approximately 280 million gallons in 2017
EIA currently projects that renewable diesel production capacity will continue to expand and could reach nearly 6 billion gallons by the end of 2025.
In addition to domestic production of renewable diesel, the U.S. has also imported renewable diesel, with nearly all of it produced from fats, oils, and greases (FOG) and imported from Singapore.
When considering the potential production and import of biodiesel and renewable diesel in future years and the likely impacts of renewable diesel production, the availability of feedstocks is a key consideration. Currently, biodiesel and renewable diesel in the U.S. are produced from a number of different feedstocks, including FOG, distillers corn oil, and virgin vegetable oils such as soybean oil and canola oil.
Use of soybean oil to produce biodiesel grew from approximately 10 percent of all domestic soybean oil production in the 2009/2010 agricultural marketing year to 48 percent in the 2023/2024 agricultural marketing year.
Through 2020, most of the renewable diesel produced in the U.S. was made from FOG and distillers corn oil, with smaller volumes produced from soybean oil.
Available volumes of FOG (including used cooking oil and animal fats) and distillers corn oil from domestic sources are expected to continue to increase in future years, but these increases are expected to be limited. FOG are the byproducts of other activities (
Greater volumes of soybean oil are projected to be produced from new or expanded soybean crushing facilities through 2030. Several parties have announced plans to expand existing soybean crushing capacity or build new soybean crushing facilities. Public announcements of new and expanded soybean crushing capacity suggest that domestic soybean crush capacity could increase by approximately 1.5 million bushels of soybeans per day from 2024 through 2026.
If domestic crushing of soybeans increases at the expense of soybean exports, domestic vegetable oil production could increase without the need for increasing domestic soybean acreage. Alternatively, increased demand for soybeans from new or expanded crushing facilities could be met through increased soybean production in the U.S. Increased demand for BBD feedstock could also be met through diversion of increasing volumes of qualifying feedstocks (
In addition to processing domestic feedstocks such as distillers corn oil and soybean oil, a number of domestic BBD producers produce BBD from imported feedstocks. In recent years, and as multiple stakeholders have noted to EPA, the market has seen a significant increase in the quantity of imported BBD feedstocks. Imports of feedstocks that are often considered wastes or by-products of other industries, such as used cooking oil and tallow, have seen the greatest increase in recent years. Figure III.B.2.d-1 shows total imports of common BBD feedstocks through 2024. Figure III.B.2.d-2 shows the total volumes of domestic BBD produced from domestic feedstocks, domestic BBD produced from imported feedstocks, and imported BBD.
There are several factors that have likely contributed to the recent increases in imports of certain BBD feedstocks to the U.S. Three key factors contributing to the increase in imported feedstocks are increasing domestic demand for these feedstocks, increasing available supply of these feedstocks in other countries, and the structure of
At the same time domestic demand for these feedstocks has been increasing, the supply available to import from other countries has also been increasing. For example, we project that production of canola oil will increase in future years due to expanding canola crushing capacity in Canada.
The incentives available in foreign countries to encourage the production and use of BBD are also changing. In response to the increase in the prices of energy and agricultural commodities caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a number of countries, including Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Latvia, Poland, and Sweden, temporarily reduced biofuel mandates and/or the penalties for not fulfilling the mandates.
At the same time, the European Union (EU) in recent years took actions to discourage the importation of used cooking oil (UCO) and biodiesel produced from UCO from China, which had previously been supplied in significant volumes. On December 20, 2023, the EU announced an anti-dumping investigation on biodiesel imported from China.
Finally, incentive programs for biofuels in the U.S. have contributed to the recent observed increases in biofuel feedstock imports. State low carbon fuel standards or clean fuels programs, such as California's LCFS, provide greater incentives for fuels with lower carbon intensities. In general, fuels produced from wastes or by-products such as UCO or tallow have lower carbon intensity values under these programs and thus generate greater credits relative to virgin vegetable oils such as soybean oil and canola oil. In recent years additional States such as Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico have adopted programs that similarly provide higher incentives for fuels with lower carbon intensity.
While these State programs do not explicitly favor imported fuels and/or feedstocks over domestic fuels and feedstocks, most of the available waste and by-product feedstocks such as UCO and tallow available in the U.S. are already being used for biofuel production. The nature of these programs has likely played a role in biofuel producers seeking to import UCO and tallow from foreign countries rather than increasing their use of domestic soybean oil to maximize their generation of credits under these programs.
Changes to the RFS program have also contributed to the observed increase in feedstock imports. In December 2022, EPA approved generally applicable pathways for certain fuels, including renewable diesel, that are produced from qualifying canola oil.
Together, the trends and policy factors described above collectively contributed to increasing imports of BBD feedstocks since 2021. We discuss the impact of these dynamics, and a proposed response to them in the RFS program, in Section VIII.
BBD (including biodiesel, renewable diesel, and renewable jet fuel) has been the fastest growing category of renewable fuel in the RFS program since 2021, with nearly all of the growth coming from renewable diesel. While the domestic supply of BBD feedstocks continues to grow, in recent years imported BBD and BBD produced from imported feedstocks have accounted for an increasing share of the total supply of BBD. BBD production capacity currently exceeds actual production and imports of these fuels by a significant margin, and ongoing investment is expected to result in significantly higher production capacity in future years, particularly for renewable diesel and renewable jet fuel. Further, because of the high blending rates for BBD in general and renewable diesel in particular, the use of BBD in the U.S. is unlikely to be constrained by limitations related to the ability to distribute these fuels or consume them in existing and future diesel engines.
In the absence of constraints related to the production capacity and the ability for the market to distribute and use BBD, the factors most likely to have the largest impact on the quantity of BBD required under the RFS program—in light of our analysis of the statutory factors—is the availability of affordable qualifying feedstocks, competition for those feedstocks for other uses, and competition for them abroad. The
In developing the volume scenarios for analysis in this action, we have therefore not attempted to identify the absolute maximum quantity of BBD that could be produced utilizing all potentially available production capacity and used in the U.S. Instead, we have developed two volume scenarios that reflect different growth rates for the quantity of BBD used in the U.S. based on our projections of the potential growth in available feedstocks. Both scenarios start with an updated projection of the supply of BBD to the U.S. which reflects the expected market conditions for 2025 based on the most recent available data at the time these scenarios were developed.
In addition to BBD, other renewable fuels that qualify as advanced biofuel have been consumed in the U.S. in the past and are expected to contribute to compliance with applicable RFS volume requirements in the future. These other advanced biofuels include imported sugarcane ethanol, domestically produced advanced ethanol, RNG used in CNG/LNG vehicles not produced from cellulosic biomass, and heating oil, naphtha, and renewable diesel that does not qualify as BBD.
To estimate the volumes of these other advanced biofuels that may be available in 2026-2030, we used the same general methodology as in the Set 1 Rule, which EPA originally presented in the Set 1 Rule. We projected the supply of these other advanced biofuels by including data on the supply of these fuels from 2023 (the most recent data available at the time the volume scenarios were defined). This methodology addresses the historical variability in these categories of advanced biofuel while recognizing that consumption in more recent years is likely to provide a better basis for making future projections than consumption in earlier years. Specifically, we applied a weighting scheme to historical volumes wherein the weighting was higher for more recent years and lower for earlier years. The result of this approach is shown in Table III.B.3-1. Details of the derivation of these estimates can be found in RIA Chapter 5.4. As the available data varies significantly from year to year, it does not allow us to identify an upward or downward trend in the historical consumption of these other advanced biofuels. Therefore, we have used the volumes in Table III.B.3-1 for all years in the volume scenarios for analysis (
Conventional renewable fuel includes any renewable fuel that is made from renewable biomass as defined in 40 CFR 80.1401, does not qualify as advanced biofuel (including cellulosic biofuel and BBD), and meets one of the following criteria:
• Is demonstrated to achieve a minimum 20 percent reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions in comparison to the gasoline or diesel which it displaces; or
• Is exempt (“grandfathered”) from the 20 percent minimum GHG reduction requirement due to having been produced in a facility or facility expansion that commenced construction on or before December 19, 2007, as described in 40 CFR 80.1403 and pursuant to CAA section 211(o)(2)(A)(i).
Under the statute, there is no volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel. Instead, conventional renewable fuel may fill that portion of the total renewable fuel volume requirement that is not required to be advanced biofuel. In some cases, this portion of the total renewable fuel requirement that can be met with conventional renewable fuel is referred to as an “implied” volume requirement. However, obligated parties are not required to comply with it per se, since any portion of it can be met with advanced biofuel volumes exceeding what is needed to meet the advanced biofuel volume requirement.
To project volumes of conventional renewable fuel for 2026-2030, we focused primarily on projecting volumes of corn ethanol consumed via motor gasoline use across all gasoline blends with varying concentrations of ethanol (
Ethanol made from corn starch has dominated the renewable fuels market on a volume basis in the past and is expected to continue to do so for the years addressed by this rulemaking.
Total domestic corn ethanol production capacity increased dramatically between 2005 and 2010 and increased at a slower rate thereafter. As of early 2024, domestic corn ethanol production capacity exceeded 18 billion gallons.
The expected annual rate of future commercial production of corn ethanol will continue to be driven primarily by gasoline demand in 2026-2030, as most gasoline is expected to continue to contain 10 percent ethanol during this period. Commercial production of corn ethanol is also a function of exports of ethanol and the demand for E0, E15, and E85. There is evidence that some fuel retailers sell higher volumes of E15 than E10, leveraging lower prices at the pump and marketing higher-level ethanol blends to their customers as a cheaper fuel option with only negligible effects on fuel economy (a 1-2 percent reduction compared to E10). In addition to government incentives, industry-led efforts such as Prime-the-Pump have enjoyed great success in growing markets for higher ethanol gasoline blends by providing technical and financial assistance to fuel retailers.
Despite this steady growth, there remains excess of production capacity of ethanol and corn feedstock in comparison to the ethanol volumes that we estimate will be consumed domestically during 2026-2030, given constraints on U.S. ethanol consumption as described in Section III.B.5. Thus, as was the case with the Set 1 Rule, we do not expect production capacity to be a limiting factor for meeting the volume scenarios analyzed in this action.
Other than corn ethanol, the only other conventional renewable fuels that have been used at significant levels in the U.S. in recent years have been conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel. Conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel are produced at facilities grandfathered under 40 CFR 80.1403 because there are no currently valid RIN-generating pathways for their production. Almost all conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel historically used in the U.S. was imported, with the only exceptions being less than 15 million gallons per year produced domestically between 2014 and 2024. The use of conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel did grow marginally in 2024 after a period of very low volume (less than 1 million gallons per year from 2018-2022), though the overall supply remained negligible (less than 0.1 percent of total biofuel supply
Ethanol consumption in the U.S. is dominated by E10, with higher-level ethanol blends such as E15 and E85 being used in much smaller quantities. The total volume of ethanol that can be consumed—including ethanol produced from corn, grain sorghum, cellulosic biomass, the non-cellulosic portions of separated food waste, and sugarcane—is a function of demand for these three ethanol blends and for E0. The distribution of consumption for these different gasoline blends is best reflected by measuring the observed poolwide ethanol concentration. Ethanol concentration across the entire gasoline pool can exceed 10 percent only insofar as the incremental ethanol in E15 and E85 volumes more than offsets the lack of ethanol in E0 volume. Poolwide ethanol concentration increased dramatically from 2003 through 2010 and has continued to grow more slowly since 2010. As the average ethanol concentration approached and then exceeded 10 percent, the gasoline pool became saturated with E10, with a small, likely stable volume of E0 and small but gradually increasing volumes of E15 and E85. We expect this trend to continue during 2026-2030.
For this action, new volume data from USDA's Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program (HBIIP)
Using the average sales of each gasoline-ethanol blend per retail fueling station, as well as updated station populations from DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC)
Total ethanol consumption is the sum of ethanol blended with gasoline (E0) to create E10, E15, and E85.
Based on the analyses described in Section III.B, we developed two different volume scenarios for 2026-2030 that we then used to analyze the expected impacts of the statutory factors. This section describes the volume scenarios, while Section IV summarizes the results of the analyses we performed. The volumes we are proposing in this action based on the analysis of the statutory factors are described in Section V.
Both of the volume scenarios developed for this action represent growth in the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel categories relative to the volume of these fuels we expect to be supplied in 2025. Further, both scenarios are identical in the quantities of cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel other than BBD, and conventional renewable fuel we project will be supplied. Where the scenarios differ is in the quantity of BBD we project will be supplied in each year. Throughout this action we refer to these two scenarios as the Low Volume Scenario and the High Volume Scenario (or collectively, “the Volume Scenarios”), though we note that even the Low Volume Scenario represents an annual growth rate of 500 million RINs per year of BBD.
In developing the Volume Scenarios, we have considered the implied volumes for each component category of renewable fuel (cellulosic biofuel, non-cellulosic advanced biofuel, and conventional renewable fuel) in the statutory tables through 2022. While these volumes are not binding on the volume requirements in future years, they do provide an indication of statutory intent. We also considered the statutory intent of the RFS program to increase renewable fuel volumes over time, along with other factors enumerated in the statute to inform the proposed volumes.
Given the nested nature of the statutory renewable fuel categories, we have largely framed our assessment of volumes in terms of the component categories rather than in terms of the statutory categories (cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, total renewable fuel). The statutory categories are those addressed in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(i)-(iii), and cellulosic and advanced biofuel are nested within the overall total renewable fuel category. The component categories are the categories of renewable fuels that make up the statutory categories, but which are not nested within one another. They possess distinct economic, environmental, technological, and other characteristics relevant to the factors we must analyze under the statute, making our focus on them rather than the nested categories in the statute technically sound. Finally, an analysis of the component categories is equivalent to analyzing the statutory categories, since doing so would effectively require us to evaluate the difference between various statutory categories (
In determining the cellulosic biofuel volume scenario, we started by considering the statutory volume targets for 2010-2022. The statutory volumes for cellulosic biofuel increased rapidly, from 100 million gallons in 2010 to 16 billion gallons in 2022 with the largest increases in the later years. While notable on its own, it is even more notable in comparison to the implied statutory volumes for the other renewable fuel volumes. Statutory BBD volumes did not increase after 2012, implied conventional renewable fuel volumes did not increase after 2015, and non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume increases tapered off in recent years with a final increment in 2022. Thus, the clear focus of the statute, and CAA section 211(o)(1)(E) in particular, by 2022 was on growth in cellulosic biofuel volumes, which have the greatest GHG reduction threshold requirement in the statute.
This increasing emphasis in the statute on cellulosic biofuel over time is likely due to some or all of the following factors:
• Expectations that cellulosic biofuel has significant potential to reduce GHG emissions (cellulosic biofuels are required to reduce GHG emissions by 60
• That cellulosic biofuel feedstocks could be produced or collected with relatively few negative environmental impacts;
• That the feedstocks would be comparable or cheaper in cost relative to other fuel feedstocks, allowing for lower cost biofuels to be produced than those produced from feedstocks without other primary uses such as food; and
• That the technological breakthroughs needed to convert cellulosic feedstocks into biofuel were likely imminent.
As discussed in Section II.C, CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) requires that EPA determine the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement such that EPA will not need to waive the volumes under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D).
The cellulosic biofuel volumes are the same for both the Low and High Volume Scenarios and represent the projected amount of qualifying biofuel expected to be used as transportation fuel in the U.S. for 2026-2030, accounting for incentives provided by the RFS program and other state and federal programs. The cellulosic biofuel volume scenario for 2026-2030 is shown in Table III.C.1-1. Because the technical, economic, and regulatory challenges related to cellulosic biofuel production vary significantly between the various types of cellulosic biofuel, we have shown the volumes for ethanol from corn kernel fiber and CNG/LNG derived from biogas separately.
Although there are no volume targets in the statute for years after 2022, the statutory volume targets for prior years represent a useful point of reference in the consideration of volumes that may be appropriate for 2026-2030. For non-cellulosic advanced biofuel, the implied statutory requirement in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B) increased in every year between 2009 and 2019. It then remained at 4.5 billion gallons for three years before finally rising to 5.0 billion gallons in 2022. In the Set 1 Rule, EPA further increased the implied volume of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel over the course of three years to a total of 5.95 billion RINs in 2025. However, the market has outperformed these standards to date primarily through higher than anticipated imports of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels and their feedstocks. In recognition of this, the volumes for non-cellulosic advanced biofuel in the Volume Scenarios are higher than the non-cellulosic biofuel volumes in the Set 1 Rule, starting with an updated projection of supply for 2025.
For 2026-2030, we anticipate that a key factor in the growth in the production of advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel (the two non-cellulosic advanced biofuels projected to be available in the greatest quantities through 2030) will be the availability of feedstocks as discussed in Section III.B.2. In light of the significant uncertainties related to the supply of qualifying feedstock in these years, we developed two scenarios for the potential supply of advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel: a low growth scenario and a high growth scenario. These two volume scenarios, when combined with our projection of the available supply of other advanced biofuels discussed in Section III.B.3, are the bases for the two non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume scenarios that differentiate the Low Volume Scenario from the High Volume Scenario.
The conventional renewable fuel volume scenario represents the volume of these fuels we project would be supplied to the market when considering the incentives that could be available through the RFS program and other state and national incentives. Since the supply of ethanol is projected to be limited by the ability for the market to consume ethanol in gasoline blends, the supply of conventional ethanol from 2026-2030 can be estimated from the total ethanol consumption projections from Table III.B.5-1 and our projections for other forms of ethanol as discussed earlier in this section. Our projected volumes of ethanol consumption are presented in Table III.C.3-1. We do not currently project that non-ethanol conventional renewable fuels will be supplied to the U.S. under the RFS program in 2026-2030.
Many of the factors we are statutorily obligated to analyze under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) when setting volume standards for the RFS program are difficult to analyze in the abstract, particularly those related to economic and environmental impacts. For this reason, we opted to develop volume scenarios to analyze for each category of renewable fuel, which are summarized in Tables III.C.4-1 and 2. Note that neither of these volume scenarios include the impacts of the proposed import RIN reduction provisions described in Section VIII.
To inform the volumes we are proposing for 2026 and 2027, we analyzed these volume scenarios according to the factors required under the statute in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii). A summary of several of these analyses is described in Section IV and discussed in greater detail in the DRIA. Details of the individual biofuel types and feedstocks that make up these volume scenarios are provided in the DRIA Chapter 3. In Section V, we discuss the proposed volume requirements based on a consideration of all the factors that we analyzed.
To estimate the impacts of the Volume Scenarios, we must identify an appropriate baseline(s). The baseline reflects the use of renewable fuels absent the proposed action or RFS program (
We also consider a 2025 baseline that in some cases may be more informative in understanding the impacts of the Volume Scenarios relative to the status quo. We further discuss alternative baselines to describe our reasoning for the public and interested stakeholders, and because we understand there are differing, informative baselines that could be used in this type of analysis.
Broadly speaking, the RFS program is designed to increase the use of renewable fuels in the transportation sector beyond what would occur in the absence of the program. It is
Importantly, a “No RFS” baseline would not be equivalent to a market scenario wherein no renewable fuels were used at all. Prior to the RFS program, both biodiesel and ethanol were used in the transportation sector, whether due to state or local incentives, tax credits, or a price advantage over conventional petroleum-based gasoline and diesel. This same situation would exist in 2026-20230 in the absence of the RFS program. Federal, State, and local tax credits, incentives, and support payments will continue to be in place for these fuels, as well as State programs such as blending mandates and LCFS programs. Furthermore, now that capital investments in renewable fuels have been made and markets have been oriented towards their use, there are strong incentives in place for continuing their use even if the RFS program were to disappear. As a result, it would be improper and inaccurate to attribute all use of renewable fuel in 2026-2030 to the applicable standards under the RFS program.
To inform our assessment of the volume of renewable fuels that would be used in the absence of the RFS program for the years 2026-2030, we began by analyzing the trends in the economics for renewable fuels blending in prior years. Assessing these trends is important because the economics for blending renewable fuels changes from year to year based on renewable fuel feedstock and petroleum product prices and other factors that affect the relative economics for blending renewable fuels into petroleum-based transportation fuels. A renewable fuel facility investor and the financiers who fund their projects will review the historical (
The No RFS Baseline economic analysis for 2026-2030 compares the projected renewable fuel cost with the projected cost for the fossil fuel it displaces, at the point that the renewable fuel is blended with the fossil fuel, to assess whether the renewable fuel provides an economic advantage to blenders. The comparison is performed at the point that the renewable fuel is blended with the fossil fuel to assess whether the renewable fuel provides an economic advantage to blenders. If the renewable fuel is lower cost than the fossil fuel it displaces, it is assumed that the renewable fuel would be used absent the RFS program (within the constraints described below). The No RFS Baseline economic analysis that we conducted mirrors the cost analysis described in Section IV.C, but there are several differences. The primary difference is that the No RFS Baseline economic analysis was conducted from the fuels industry's perspective, whether they would find it economically advantageous to blend renewable fuel into petroleum fuel in the absence of the RFS program. Conversely, the social cost analysis reflects the overall cost impacts on society at large.
• In the context of assessing production costs, we amortized the capital costs at a higher rate of return more typical for industry investment instead of the rate of return used for social costs.
• We assessed renewable fuel distribution costs to the point where it is blended into petroleum fuel, not all the way to the point of use, which is necessary for estimating the fuel economy cost.
• While we generally do not account for the fuel economy disadvantage of most renewable fuels for the No RFS Baseline economic analysis, the exception is E85 where the lower fuel economy of using E85 is so obvious to vehicle owners that they demand a lower price to make up for this loss of fuel economy. As a result, retailers must price E85 lower than the primary alternative E10 to account for this bias and they must consider this in their decisions to blend and sell E85.
To estimate the relative cost of a renewable fuel compared to the fossil fuel being displaced, we considered several different cost components (
In addition, there are a number of State programs that create subsidies for biodiesel and renewable diesel fuel, the largest being offered by California and Oregon through their LCFS programs.
For most renewable fuels, the economic analysis provided consistent results, indicating that they are either
We also conducted an economic analysis for cellulosic biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol, corn kernel fiber ethanol, and biogas. Since the volumes of these biofuels were much smaller, a more generalized approach was used in lieu of the detailed state-by-state analysis conducted for corn ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable diesel fuel.
The No RFS Baseline for 2026-2030 is summarized in Table III.D.1-1.
Our analysis shows that conventional ethanol is economical to use in 10 percent blends (E10) without the presence of the RFS program. Conversely, higher-level ethanol blends are only partially economic without the RFS program. E85 is economic in some of the years before, during, and after the years 2026-2030 in the State of California;
The applicable volume requirements established for one year under the RFS program do not roll over automatically to the next, nor do the volume requirements that apply in one year become the default volume requirements for the following year in the event that no volume requirements are set for that following year. Nevertheless, the volume requirements established for the previous year represent the most recent set of volume requirements that the market was required to meet.
Since the previous year's volume requirements represent the starting point for any adjustments that the market may need to make to meet the next year's volume requirements, they represent another informational baseline for comparison. For this reason, in previous RFS annual standard-setting rulemakings we have used previous year standards as a baseline against which to compare the projected impacts of the proposed volumes and are also doing so here in addition to the No RFS Baseline for some of the factors (
The 2025 volume requirements were finalized in the Set 1 Rule and the volumes we projected to be used to satisfy these requirements are shown in Table III.D.3-1.
In general, our analysis of the impacts of the Volume Scenarios was based on the differences between the No RFS Baseline and our assessment of how the market would respond to the Low and High Volume Scenarios. Those differences are shown in Tables III.E-1 and 2.
As described in Section II.B, the statute specifies a number of factors that EPA must analyze in making a determination of the appropriate volume requirements to establish for years after 2022 (and for BBD, years after 2012).
Changes in the required volumes of renewable fuel can affect the financial and security-related risks associated with U.S. trade in crude oil and petroleum products, including both imports and exports (hereafter referred to collectively as “net petroleum imports”), which, in turn, would have a direct impact on the national energy security of the U.S. Likewise, the required volumes of renewable fuel may lead to changes in imports and exports of renewable fuels and renewable fuel feedstocks that can also impact U.S. energy security.
U.S. energy security is often defined as the continued availability of energy sources at an acceptable price.
The U.S. has witnessed a significant change in its exposure to the world oil market since the initiation of the RFS2 program in 2010, which has implications for U.S. energy security. In 2010, U.S. net imports of petroleum were roughly 9.4 million barrels a day (MMBD).
In recent years, however, a substantial quantity of imports of renewable fuels and renewable fuel feedstocks have been used to meet the RFS volume obligations. In particular, there has been a recent expansion of imports of BBD feedstocks since 2021, as can be seen in Figure III.B.2.d-2. This shift, which has been driven by a confluence of factors (as discussed in Section III.B.2), can have implications for the U.S.'s energy security and energy independence.
Despite the long-term shift in the U.S.'s net petroleum trade position, energy security risks remain for the U.S. There are three main reasons why energy security is still a concern. First, oil and renewable fuels and renewable fuel feedstocks are globally traded commodities. As a result, price shocks for these commodities can be transmitted globally even if a country is a net exporter of a commodity. For example, since the U.S. is a large consumer of oil, an oil price shock would raise the price of oil and oil products and could cause broad adverse effects on the economy, even though the U.S. is an overall net petroleum exporter. Second, many U.S. refineries rely significantly or exclusively on imports of heavy crude oil, which could be subject to international supply disruptions. In 2024, gross petroleum imports totaled roughly 8.4 MMBD.
Oil markets can be subject to episodic periods of price instability due to world oil market disruptions. The most recent world oil price shock started in the beginning of 2022, when world oil prices and price volatility rose fairly rapidly, in large part as a response to oil supply concerns with Russia's invasion of Ukraine beginning on February 24, 2022.
EPA has worked with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to understand the energy security implications of reducing U.S. net petroleum imports and, more generally, exposure of the U.S. economy to global oil markets. ORNL has developed approaches for evaluating the social costs/impacts and energy security implications of oil imports, labeled the “oil import premium” or “oil security premium.” ORNL's methodology estimates two distinct costs/impacts of importing petroleum into the U.S., in addition to the purchase price of petroleum itself: (1) The risk of reductions in U.S. economic output and disruption to the U.S. economy caused by sudden disruptions in the supply of imported oil to the U.S. (
As has been the case for past RFS rulemakings, we consider the monopsony impacts estimated by the ORNL methodology to be a transfer payment, and thus exclude it from the estimated quantified benefits of the Volume Scenarios.
For this action, EPA and ORNL have worked together to revise the U.S. oil import premiums based upon recent energy security literature and oil price projections and energy market and economic trends from AEO2023.
To calculate the energy security benefits of the Volume Scenarios, we are using the ORNL macroeconomic oil security premiums combined with estimates of annual reductions in U.S. net petroleum imports attributable to the changes in renewable fuel volumes.
This section provides a brief discussion of the methodology used to estimate the cost impacts for the renewable fuels expected to be used for the Volume Scenarios, as well as for the proposed volume standards, all relative to the No RFS Baseline. A more detailed discussion of how we estimated the renewable fuel costs, as well as the fossil fuel costs being displaced, can be found in DRIA Chapter 10.
The cost analysis compared the cost of biofuels attributable to the RFS program to the cost of the fossil fuel it displaces. The net estimated cost impacts are total social costs, excluding any subsidies and transfer payments, and thus are incrementally added to all other societal costs. They do not include benefits and other factors, such as the potential impacts on soil and water quality or potential GHG reduction benefits. The cost of each biofuel and fossil fuel being displaced can be divided into various subcomponents:
•
•
•
•
•
We added these various cost components together as appropriate for each renewable fuel to reflect the cost of that fuel. We conducted a similar cost estimate for the fossil fuels being displaced since their relative cost to biofuels is used to estimate the net cost of the increased use of biofuels. Unlike for biofuels, however, we did not calculate production costs for the fossil fuels since their production costs are inherent in the wholesale price projections provided in AEO2023.
In this section, we summarize the overall results of our cost analysis based on changes in the use of renewable fuels that displace fossil fuel use for the Volume Scenarios; the costs for the proposed volume standards are
Table IV.B.2-1 provides the total estimated annual cost of the Volume Scenarios while Table IV.B.2-2 provides the per-unit cost (
The biofuel costs are higher than the costs of the gasoline, diesel, and natural gas that they displace as evidenced by the increases in fuel costs shown in Table IV.B.2-2.
The costs presented in this section are solely for the Volume Scenarios relative to the No RFS Baseline, whereas Section V.H.4 contains the estimated costs for the proposed volume standards. DRIA Chapter 10 contains summaries of the costs of all the scenarios modeled, including the Volume Scenarios relative to the 2025 Baseline, which are not summarized here.
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) provides that when determining the applicable volumes of each renewable fuel category after the year 2022, EPA shall include “an analysis of . . . the impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on . . . climate change.” As such, we have undertaken an assessment of the potential climate impacts of volume standards consistent with the Volume Scenarios. This analysis considers impacts of such volume standards for three years—2026, 2027, and 2028—relative to the No RFS Baseline.
Cumulative emissions impact estimates for a thirty-year analytical time period are presented in Table IV.C-1. This section of the preamble contains only a brief synopsis of the results of our analysis; a full description of the methods of analysis, models, scenarios, estimated GHG emissions impacts by year, and uncertainties considered is presented in DRIA Chapter 5.
Scenarios in the climate change analysis produce annual emissions estimates for a 30-year analytical scenario duration. Additional information about analytical methods for estimating GHG emissions impacts can be found in DRIA Chapter 5; we note that the analysis for this rulemaking relies on an updated methodology for assessing climate change impacts under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I), details of which can also be found in DRIA Chapter 5. We request comment on our analysis of the GHG emissions impacts of the proposed volume standards, and whether factors in addition to GHG emissions, such as other drivers of climate change and other considerations fitting within the term “climate change,” are relevant to the analysis. In addition to requesting comment on this analysis in general, including the updated methodology, we specifically request comment on the following aspects:
• The methods for evaluating crop-based fuels and waste- and byproduct-based fuels.
• The use of economic models for assessing the potential market-mediated impacts associated with crop-based fuels.
• The scenarios used in this analysis, including the analytical duration, and assumed future (post-2027) biofuel consumption levels for both the policy and baseline scenarios.
In this section, we summarize our estimates of the impacts of the Volume Scenarios on jobs and rural economic development (both include direct, indirect, and induced impacts).
To estimate the impacts on jobs, we applied two analytical approaches common in the literature. The first is a basic “rule-of-thumb” type approach that uses job and income impact estimates from previous studies, expressed in jobs and/or dollars per unit of biofuel production, and multiplies these estimated impacts by the projected volumes to arrive at employment estimates. This approach is taken to produce estimates for the impacts of the quantities of ethanol, BBD, and RNG fuels in the Volume Scenarios relative to the No RFS Baseline.
The second is a slightly more nuanced approach that relies on the use of an input-output modeling methodology developed specifically for analysis of dry mill corn ethanol, which is applied only to the volumes of that fuel in the Volume Scenarios relative to the No RFS Baseline. These estimates are summarized in Tables IV. D-1 and 2. In some cases, we have developed ranges of impacts for fuel volumes based on uncertainty regarding how the volumes will be provided. For example, volumes associated with new production capacity would also be associated with some number of temporary construction jobs, while expanded capacity utilization at existing facilities would not. These ranges of potential impacts are summarized in tables in DRIA Chapter 9, along with detailed explanations of the associated methodology. For the corn ethanol case alone, we present the results of these two analyses coequally here and request comment regarding approaches to estimating the employment impacts of ethanol for the final rule. Both sets of estimates (
We estimate that all three categories of renewable fuel we analyzed—ethanol, BBD, and RNG—are associated with increases in jobs to varying degrees. We observe that RNG appears to be associated with the highest number of direct jobs created per unit of biofuel. However, BBD is projected to have the highest job creation impact overall, primarily due to substantially higher production increases relative to the baseline. In terms of rural employment specifically, ethanol has the highest direct and total effects per million gallons of ethanol equivalent. Relative to the No RFS Baseline and accounting for direct, indirect, and induced effects, BBD is projected to have the highest impact on agricultural employment, mainly due to substantially higher production increases relative to the baseline.
We also estimate that ethanol, BBD, and RNG are all associated with increased rural economic development, again to varying degrees. Since renewable fuels rely on agricultural feedstocks, we use the GDP impacts associated with agricultural feedstocks to infer the effects on rural economic development. We estimate that BBD and ethanol have higher impacts per million gallons of ethanol equivalent on rural economic development than does RNG. Relative to the No RFS Baseline and accounting for direct, indirect, and induced effects, BBD is projected to have the highest impact on rural economic development, largely due to substantially higher production increases relative to the baseline.
Tables IV.D-1 and 2 summarize the estimated economy-wide job impacts and rural GDP impacts (both include direct, indirect, and induced impacts) associated with the volumes of ethanol, BBD, and RNG attributable to the Low Volume Scenario and High Volume Scenario, respectively. The estimates of rural GDP impacts are actual values as opposed to discounted values, implying that they do not reflect the time value of money.
We request comment on our approaches to estimating jobs and rural economic development impacts associated with renewable fuels.
These estimates for the various categories of biofuels are subject to the limitations and assumptions of the methods employed. They are not meant to be exact estimates, but rather to provide an estimate of general magnitude. In addition, while we estimate that production and consumption of these biofuels will lead to higher jobs and rural GDP in some sectors of the economy, this will likely involve some migration in jobs and rural GDP from other sectors. As such, we anticipate that there would be job and rural GDP losses as well in some sectors. Likewise, investments in rural development may involve some shifting of capital from one sector to another. We do not account for any such losses in our analysis. In other words, our estimates for jobs and rural development impacts are gross estimates and not net estimates.
The existing literature also shows, in the long run, environmental regulation such as the RFS program typically affects the distribution of employment among industries rather than the general employment level.
For the final rule, we intend to carry out a more robust modeling exercise that may capture more of these nuances. We request comments on the types of approaches which would be appropriate to apply in conducting such an analysis.
In this section, we summarize the projected impacts of the Volume Scenarios on agricultural commodity and food prices. A detailed explanation of the methods used to estimate these impacts can be found in DRIA Chapter 9.
To assess the potential impact on corn prices, we used a literature-based estimate that corn prices increase by 3 percent for every additional billion gallons of corn ethanol produced.
To determine the potential impact of the Volume Scenarios on soybean oil and meal prices, we calculated projected price effects for 2026-2030 relative to the No RFS Baseline. These projections assume a 35.7 percent increase in the price of a pound of soybean oil per billion gallons of biofuel produced and a 7.94 percent decrease in the price of a short ton of soybean meal per billion gallons of biofuel produced.
In addition to estimating the price impacts on corn, soybean oil, and soybean meal, we also assessed price changes for other feed grains—grain sorghum, barley, and oats—as well as distillers grains. These commodities were included in this analysis because they have historically competed with corn in the feed market and, to a lesser extent, for planted acreage. These price changes were estimated using historical price relationships with corn, and the analysis found only minimal impacts on the other grains.
Additionally, the impact on commodity prices described above may, in turn, have downstream effects on food prices and other products derived from these commodities. To estimate the effect on total food expenditures, we combined these projected price changes with forecasts of commodity use for food production.
As required by CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), we have reviewed the implementation of the RFS program in prior years and have analyzed a specified set of factors. The proposed volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 (the “Proposed Volumes”) are informed by our technical analyses of the Volume Scenarios, which are summarized in Section IV. Further details of all analyses performed for this action are provided in the DRIA.
In this section, we summarize and discuss the implications of our analyses and any other relevant information that apply to each of three different component categories of biofuel: cellulosic biofuel, non-cellulosic advanced biofuel, and conventional renewable fuel. These three components combine to produce the statutory categories: the advanced biofuel volume requirement is equal to the sum of cellulosic biofuel and non-cellulosic advanced biofuel, while the total renewable fuel volume requirement is equal to the sum of advanced biofuel and conventional renewable fuel.
In general, the volume requirements we are proposing for 2026 and 2027 are designed to provide significant support for the continued growth in the production and use of renewable fuels. While the Proposed Volumes (expressed in billion RINs) are similar to the Low Volume Scenario and lower than the High Volume Scenario, we project that the Proposed Volumes would result in significantly higher renewable fuel production and consumption in the U.S. than either the Low or High Volume Scenario, particularly for domestic renewable fuel, due to the proposed import RIN reduction provisions.
We note that while we do not separately discuss each of the statutory factors for each component category in this section, we have analyzed all the statutory factors. However, it was not always possible to precisely identify the implications of the analysis of a specific factor for a specific component category of renewable fuel. For instance, while we analyzed the impact of biodiesel and renewable diesel on the cost to consumers of transportation fuel, biodiesel and renewable diesel can be used to satisfy multiple biofuel requirements (
In EISA, Congress set increasing targets for cellulosic biofuel, aiming to reach 16 billion gallons by 2022. After 2015, all growth in the mandated total renewable fuel volume was designated for advanced biofuels, with the majority of that growth focused on cellulosic biofuels. This indicates that Congress intended the RFS program to strongly incentivize cellulosic biofuels, placing a particular emphasis on their development after 2015. While cellulosic biofuel production has not reached the levels envisioned by Congress in 2007, EPA remains committed to supporting the advancement and commercialization of these fuels.
Cellulosic biofuels, particularly those produced from waste or residue materials, have the potential to significantly reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. In many cases cellulosic biofuel can be produced without impacting current land use and with little to no impact on other environmental factors, such as air and
As outlined in Section III, the Volume Scenarios reflect the projected growth in cellulosic biofuel production and use in the transportation sector through 2030, accounting for potential constraints in both the production and use of cellulosic biofuel. We then evaluated the Volume Scenarios using additional statutory factors. The results of these evaluations are summarized here and detailed further in the DRIA. Our analysis suggests that cellulosic biofuels offer several significant benefits, including the potential for exceptionally low lifecycle GHG emissions that meet or exceed the 60 percent GHG reduction threshold for cellulosic biofuel.
The feedstocks currently used and expected to be used through 2027, particularly biogas used for CNG/LNG production, are not anticipated to cause substantial land use changes that could lead to negative environmental impacts. None of the cellulosic biofuel feedstocks expected to be used to produce liquid cellulosic biofuels through 2027 (including corn kernel fiber, mill residue, and separated MSW) are produced with the intention that they be used as feedstocks for cellulosic biofuel production. Because of this, using these feedstocks to produce liquid cellulosic biofuel is not expected to have significant adverse impacts related to several of the statutory factors, including the conversion of wetlands, ecosystems and wildlife habitat, soil and water quality, the price and supply of agricultural commodities, and food prices through 2027.
Cellulosic biofuels are also expected to provide significant economic development benefits. The production of these fuels supports local economies, creating jobs in biofuel facilities and related distribution networks. By encouraging the cellulosic biofuel market, the U.S. strengthens its energy independence and reduces reliance on foreign fuels, while fostering economic resilience.
Although both liquid cellulosic biofuels and CNG/LNG from biogas are produced from wastes or by-product feedstocks, they differ significantly in terms of production costs and market competitiveness. Liquid cellulosic biofuels face high production costs due to low fuel yields per ton of feedstock and the substantial capital investment required for production facilities. Consequently, their economic viability, at least in the short term (through 2027), will likely depend on high cellulosic RIN prices and supportive programs such as California's LCFS program and the 45Z tax credit to enable them to compete with petroleum-based fuels. In contrast, CNG/LNG derived from biogas sourced from landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and agricultural digesters can be more cost competitive with fossil fuels. In certain cases, such as larger landfills, CNG/LNG production costs can even approach those of conventional natural gas. Nonetheless, most biogas-derived fuels, and particularly those from new sources, rely on financial incentives to remain competitive. Given their relatively lower production costs and mature technology, and in combination with the high financial incentive created by the RFS program in addition to that from State LCFS programs and tax credits, CNG/LNG from biogas is expected to remain the dominant form of cellulosic biofuel through 2027. The combination of high RIN prices and the growing volume of CNG/LNG used as transportation fuel and the high cellulosic RIN prices that refiners must recover through fuel sales leads to an expected increase in gasoline and diesel prices.
Our analysis of the statutory factors indicates that the benefits of increasing cellulosic biofuel volumes outweigh the potential downsides. To maximize these advantages, we are proposing cellulosic biofuel volumes through 2027 at levels that align with projected growth in the consumption of CNG/LNG as transportation fuel from 2026 to 2027. These proposed volumes, based on the most current data at the time of this action, represent a well-informed estimate of the achievable growth in cellulosic biofuel production during this period. We believe that these volumes would continue to encourage investment in and development of cellulosic biofuels while adhering to statutory requirements, including those under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv).
We also acknowledge the uncertainty in forecasting cellulosic biofuel volumes. If actual cellulosic biofuel production and imports fall significantly below the required volume, resulting in a RIN shortfall, obligated parties may lack sufficient cellulosic RINs to meet their RFS obligations. This could lead to some parties carrying forward compliance deficits, and if production and imports continue to lag targets, non-compliance could become a risk. Conversely, if cellulosic biofuel production and imports exceed the required volumes, resulting in a RIN surplus and lower prices for cellulosic biofuels and cellulosic RINs. This scenario could undermine investments in cellulosic biofuel production, with the simple possibility of such a surplus potentially discouraging future investments. Using the best available data, we believe the proposed cellulosic biofuel volumes are reasonable and achievable, as well as consistent with the statutory requirement in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) that EPA
The volume targets established by Congress through 2022 anticipated volumes of advanced biofuel beyond what would be needed to satisfy the cellulosic standard. The statutory target for advanced biofuel in 2022 (21 billion gallons) allowed for up to five billion gallons of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel to be used towards the advanced biofuel volume target, with additional quantities of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel able to contribute towards meeting the total renewable fuel requirement. The applicable standards for 2022 similarly include five billion gallons of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel. In the Set 1 Rule, EPA continued to grow the implied non-cellulosic advanced biofuel category, which reached 5.95 billion gallons in 2025.
As discussed in Sections III.B.2 and 3, we developed volume scenarios for non-cellulosic advanced biofuel based on a consideration of the quantities of these fuels potentially able to be supplied to the U.S. market. This process included consideration of the supply of these fuels in 2023 and the months in 2024 for which data were available and the projected future projection and import of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels in future years. The non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes in the Volume Scenarios reflect significantly different growth rates for this category (500 million RINs per year vs. 1 billion RINs per year). These volume scenarios were designed to enable us to consider the likely impacts of different volume requirements for non-cellulosic advanced biofuel. They also reflect the significant uncertainty in the volume of these fuels that could be supplied to the U.S. in future years. We then analyzed the Volume Scenarios according to the statutory factors.
In this action we are proposing volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 that reflect 500 million RIN annual increases in the projected supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel. These increases are relative to the volume of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel we project will be supplied to the U.S. in 2025 based on available data, which is significantly higher than the volumes of these fuels we projected would be supplied in 2025 in the Set 1 Rule. Our decision to propose volumes consistent with Low Volume Scenario is based on our assessment of the impacts of biofuels produced from domestic feedstocks on the statutory factors and our projection of the quantity of qualifying feedstocks available to biofuel producers. Our assessment of the statutory factors, and how these assessments support the proposed non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes, are summarized in the remainder of this section, and are discussed in greater detail in the DRIA.
A key consideration in determining the proposed non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes is our proposal in this action to reduce the number of RINs generated for imported renewable fuels and renewable fuels produced from foreign feedstocks by 50 percent, as discussed in Section VIII. While much of the renewable fuel eligible to generate RINs under the RFS program is produced by domestic producers from domestic feedstocks—including the vast majority of all cellulosic biofuel and conventional renewable fuel—we estimate that nearly 50 percent of all non-cellulosic advanced biofuel was imported or produced from foreign feedstocks in 2024.
To date, the vast majority of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel in the RFS program has been biodiesel and renewable diesel, with relatively small volumes of sugarcane ethanol and other advanced biofuels. While the impacts of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels on the statutory factors vary depending on the fuel type, production process, where the fuel is produced (
Advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel together accounted for 95 percent or more of the total supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel over the last several years, and together the two fuels are expected to continue to do so through 2027 due to the limited production and import of other types of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels.
As in past RFS rulemakings, our analyses indicate that for some of the statutory factors the projected impacts of increasing consumption of biodiesel and renewable diesel are expected to be generally positive or neutral, while for other factors the impacts are expected to be generally negative. For other factors, the projected impacts vary significantly depending on whether the feedstock used to produce the fuel is a waste or byproduct (
All qualifying biodiesel and renewable diesel is expected to diversify the transportation fuel supply and thus have a positive impact on the energy security of the U.S. Similarly, because we project that all of the increase in the supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel through 2027 will be supplied from domestic biofuel producers using domestic feedstocks, we expect these fuels to positively impact employment and rural economic development. We
Other statutory factors suggest that lower volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel may be appropriate. Biodiesel and renewable diesel have historically had higher costs than the diesel fuel they displace and are expected to continue to cost more into the future, primarily due to relatively high feedstock costs. These higher costs are expected to ultimately be passed through to consumers, resulting in higher costs for transportation fuel and higher costs to transport goods.
Finally, the projected impacts on some of the statutory factors are expected to vary significantly depending on the feedstock used to produce the biodiesel or renewable diesel. We have generally assumed that biofuels produced from wastes or byproducts such as UCO and tallow do not drive the conversion of land to cropland, increase the intensity of farming practices, or raise agricultural commodity or food prices.
Increases in domestic sources of waste or byproduct feedstocks in future years are projected to be limited as much of the available feedstocks are already being used for biofuel production with smaller quantities collected for other productive uses. Significant volumes of these feedstocks may be available from foreign countries, though there is significant uncertainty in the quantities of these feedstocks that will be available to the U.S. in future years.
Biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from agricultural commodities such as soybean oil and canola oil are more likely to have negative impacts on wetlands, wildlife habitat and ecosystems, and water quality, as demand for these feedstocks can result in increased conversion of native lands to cropland. This land conversion (whether land is converted directly to produce biofuel crops or induced through higher commodity prices) generally results in GHG emissions, and therefore biofuels produced from these feedstocks are expected to have lower GHG emission benefits than biofuels produced from wastes or byproducts. Significant opportunities exist for increasing domestic production of soybean oil (which would be expected to positively impact job creation and rural economic development), as well as imported canola oil from Canada. Because the supply of these feedstocks is less dependent on imports and there are relatively fewer incentives and lower demand for biofuels produced from vegetable oils, we have greater confidence in projecting the potential supply of these feedstocks in future years.
Our analysis of the Volume Scenarios indicated likely differences in impacts on the statutory factors between growth in the supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from wastes or byproducts such as UCO and tallow (primarily imported from foreign countries) and those produced from virgin vegetable oils (primarily from the U.S.). Thus, the availability and likely use of these feedstocks for biofuel production and use in the U.S. is a key factor in our consideration of the proposed non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes. As discussed further in the remainder of this section, there is relatively less uncertainty in the projected availability of vegetable oils than there is in the projected availability of wastes or byproducts such as UCO and tallow. The higher uncertainty in the projected availability of the waste and byproduct feedstocks is not only a function of the quantity of these feedstocks that can be collected globally, but also of demand for these feedstocks for biofuel production and other productive uses in other countries.
The available supply of vegetable oils to domestic biofuel producers is generally a function of the potential for increased production of these feedstocks in the U.S. and Canada, though some small imports from other countries do occur. The available supply of distillers corn oil is primarily a function of corn ethanol production, as most corn ethanol facilities currently extract and sell distillers corn oil. The available supply of soybean oil and canola oil is primarily a function of the quantity of these oils produced by oilseed crushing facilities. Based on the observed increases in soybean and canola crush capacity in recent years and publicly available information on expansions underway, we can reasonably project the rate of growth in the soybean and canola crush industry through 2027, assuming continued demand for the vegetable oils produced from these facilities is sufficient to support ongoing investment in crush capacity.
For distillers corn oil, soybean oil, and canola oil, the primary source of uncertainty in the supply of these feedstocks to domestic biofuel producers is the demand for these feedstocks in markets other than biofuel production in the U.S. With the exception of imports of canola oil from Canada, imports of distillers corn oil, soybean oil, and canola oil from countries other than Canada have been
In addition to vegetable oils, the other primary sources of feedstocks for biodiesel and renewable diesel production are animal fats (such as tallow) and UCO. In the U.S., collection and productive use of these feedstocks is well established. Most of the economically recoverable UCO and animal fats in the U.S. are currently collected and productively used, primarily for biofuel production.
In contrast, there is both significant growth potential and a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the supply of animal fats and UCO that could be imported into the U.S. and used for biofuel production. The uncertainty is associated both with the quantity of these materials that can be economically collected and competition for available feedstocks and biofuels produced from these feedstocks in other countries.
The global supply of animal fats is expected to increase with global meat consumption. Global meat production increased 53 percent from 2000 to 2021 and is expected to continue to increase in future years.
The global supply of UCO is primarily a function of UCO collection rates, which are themselves a function of the total quantity of vegetable oils used in food production and the infrastructure in place to collect and productively use UCO. UCO collection rates vary significantly by country, from virtually nothing in many countries to approximately 2.5 pounds per capita in the U.S.
In addition to the uncertainty related to the global collection of animal fats and UCO, there is also significant uncertainty related to the markets where these feedstocks and biofuels produced from them will be used. Because biodiesel and renewable diesel generally cost more to produce than the petroleum fuels they displace, demand for these fuels is primarily driven by the incentives available to the producers and/or blenders of these fuels. Many countries around the world offer incentives or have imposed mandates for the use of biodiesel and renewable diesel. These incentives vary significantly from country to country, both in magnitude and in structure. For example, some countries provide the same incentive for all gallons of qualifying biofuel, while other countries provide increasing incentives for biofuels that provide greater GHG reductions, such as the waste feedstock derived fuels.
Because incentives are often greatest for animal fats and UCO feedstocks and biofuels produced from them, the market for these fuels is subject to greater volatility based on changes in biofuel policies than are vegetable oils and biofuels produced from vegetable oils. For example, in California's LCFS program, biofuels produced from animal fats and UCO generally have a lower carbon intensity and thus generate more credits than biofuels produced from vegetable oils such as soybean oil and canola oil. The EU's RED II places no restrictions on the crediting of biofuels produced from animal fats and UCO while the crediting of biofuels produced from food and feed crops is limited to a maximum of 7 percent of the consumption in the road and rail transport sector in each member state.
Recent changes in the trade flows of UCO from China illustrate the changing nature of incentive programs and the impact these changes can have on the supply of biofuel feedstocks. From 2018-2023, exports of UCO from China increased significantly, from approximately 0.6 million metric tons in 2018 to about 2.1 million metric tons in 2023. From 2018-2022, the primary destination of these exports was Europe, accounting for approximately 60 percent of all exports of UCO from China, while less than 1 percent of all exports of UCO from China were exported to the U.S.
Based on our analyses of all the statutory factors, we are proposing volumes for 2026 and 2027 that reflect 500 million RIN annual increases in the projected supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel relative to the projected supply of these fuels in 2025. These volumes reflect our consideration of the impacts of these fuels on the statutory factors, including the potential increases in employment and economic impacts associated with the increased production of these fuels (particularly those produced from domestic feedstocks) and the potential for GHG reductions that may result from their use. The proposed non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes also reflect our consideration of the projected potential increases in biodiesel and renewable diesel production and supply based primarily on our assessment of the supply of feedstocks used to produce these fuels (including the uncertainties associated with these projections), the projected high costs for these fuels relative to the petroleum fuel they displace, and the potential negative impacts associated with increasing demand for vegetable oils or diverting feedstocks from existing uses to biofuel production.
We project that the feedstocks needed to produce the proposed non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes could be supplied from domestic sources and therefore are not dependent on increases in the quantity of imported feedstocks in future years. The proposed reduction in the number of RINs generated for imported renewable fuels and renewable fuels produced from foreign feedstocks significantly increase the likelihood that the increase in the supply of non-cellulosic biofuels through 2027 will be supplied by domestic biofuel producers using domestic feedstocks. Through 2027, we project that imported renewable fuels and feedstocks will continue to contribute towards the total supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels, but that the relative share of imported renewable fuels and feedstocks will decrease in future years as domestic supplies increase in response to the incentives provided by the RFS program. We acknowledge, however, that the impact of the proposed import RIN reduction provisions on imports of biodiesel, renewable diesel, and feedstocks used to produce these fuels is uncertain. We request comment on the impact of the proposed import RIN reduction provisions on imports of biodiesel, renewable diesel, and feedstocks used to produce these fuels.
We recognize that there are potential negative impacts likely to result from non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume requirements that are too high or too low. If we establish volume requirements for these fuels that are too low, the market will likely supply lower volumes of these fuels to the U.S. than could be achieved with higher volume requirements. This could negatively impact biofuel producers and result in lower employment, economic impacts, and GHG emission reductions than could be achieved with higher volume requirements. Conversely, if we establish volume requirements for these fuels that are too high, the costs of these fuels would be expected to rise, increasing the prices of food, fuel, and other goods for consumers. It is also possible that the market would be unable to supply higher volumes, requiring EPA to reduce the volume requirements in the future, undermining the market stability the RFS program is designed to provide. Finally, increasing demand for feedstocks could result in the diversion of qualifying feedstocks from existing uses and increased demand for substitutes such as palm oil. We request comment on whether higher or lower volumes of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel may be appropriate for 2026 and 2027.
While we have determined that it is reasonable to propose volumes for 2026 and 2027 that reflect 500 million RIN annual increases in the projected supply of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel, we are not proposing the advanced biofuel volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 at a level equal to the sum of cellulosic biofuel and non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes in this scenario. Consistent with the approach taken by EPA in the Set 1 Rule, and as discussed in greater detail in Section V.D, we are proposing volume requirements in this action that reflect an implied conventional renewable fuel requirement of 15 billion gallons in each year. Since we project that the quantity of conventional renewable fuel available in these years will be limited, significant volumes of non-ethanol biofuels will be needed to meet the proposed conventional renewable fuel volume of 15 billion gallons.
We project that the most likely source of non-ethanol biofuel will be biodiesel and renewable diesel that qualifies as BBD. Biodiesel and renewable diesel cannot be used to satisfy the projected shortfall in conventional renewable fuel if we already require the use of these fuels to meet the proposed non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes. Therefore, the proposed non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volumes are equal to the Low Volume Scenario less the volume projected to be needed to meet the shortfall in the proposed conventional renewable fuel volume. The proposed non-cellulosic advanced
In previous RFS rulemakings, we have adopted an approach of increasing the BBD volume requirement in concert with the change, if any, in the implied non-cellulosic advanced biofuel volume requirement. This approach provides ongoing support for BBD producers, while maintaining an opportunity for other advanced biofuels to compete for market share. In reviewing the implementation of the RFS program to date, we determined that this approach successfully balanced a desire to provide support for BBD producers with an increasing guaranteed market, while at the same time maintaining an opportunity for other advanced biofuels to compete within the advanced biofuel category. Our assessment of the impacts of BBD on the statutory factors is discussed further in the DRIA.
As in recent years, we believe that excess volumes of BBD beyond the BBD volume requirements will be used to satisfy the advanced biofuel volume requirement within which the BBD volume requirement is nested. Historically, the BBD standard has not independently driven the use of BBD in the market. This is due to the nested nature of the standards and the competitiveness of BBD relative to other advanced biofuels. Moreover, BBD can also be driven by the implied conventional renewable fuel volume requirement as an alternative to using increasing volumes of corn ethanol in higher-level ethanol blends such as E15 and E85. We believe these trends will continue through 2027.
We also believe it is important to maintain space for other advanced biofuels to participate within the advanced biofuel standard of the RFS program. Although the BBD industry has matured over the past decade, the production of advanced biofuels other than biodiesel and renewable diesel continues to be relatively low and uncertain. Maintaining this space for other advanced biofuels can in the long-term facilitate increased commercialization and use of other advanced biofuels, which may have superior environmental benefits, avoid concerns with food prices and supply, and have lower costs relative to BBD. Furthermore, rather than only supporting BBD, the new 45Z credit may support the production and use of non-BBD advanced biofuels as well. Despite the potential impacts of the 45Z credit, we do not think increasing the size of this space is necessary through 2027 given that only small quantities of these other advanced biofuels have been used in recent years relative to the space we have provided for them in those years.
The proposed BBD volumes represent significant growth from the volumes established in the Set 1 Rule. At the same time, these volumes preserve an opportunity for non-cellulosic advanced biofuels other than BBD to compete for market share within the advanced biofuel category. We are proposing BBD volumes that maintain a 600 million RIN opportunity for non-cellulosic advanced biofuels other than BBD, which is approximately equal to the opportunity for these fuels from 2023-2025. We request comment on this 600 million RIN amount and whether a higher or lower number would be appropriate. The proposed BBD volumes are shown in Table V.C-1.
Note that, unlike in previous years, the BBD volume requirement is expressed in RINs rather than physical gallons. As discussed in Section X.C, we are proposing to make this change to better align the BBD requirement with the requirements for the other three categories of renewable fuel, which are expressed in RINs rather than gallons. This change also reflects the increasing uncertainty in the relationship between the number of gallons of BBD that will be needed to satisfy the percentage standards due to the proposed reduction in the number of RINs generated for imported renewable fuels and renewable fuels produced from foreign feedstocks.
Although Congress had intended cellulosic biofuel to become the most widely used renewable fuel by 2022, conventional renewable fuel has continued to account for the majority of renewable fuel supply since the RFS program began in 2005. The favorable economics of blending corn ethanol at 10 percent into gasoline, even without the incentives created by the RFS
The implied statutory volume target for conventional renewable fuel rose annually between 2009 and 2015 until it reached 15 billion gallons, where it remained through 2022. EPA has used 15 billion gallons of conventional renewable fuel in calculating the applicable percentage standards for several recent years, most recently for 2023-2025 in the Set 1 Rule.
As discussed in Section III.B.5, constraints on ethanol consumption have prevented the volume of ethanol used in transportation fuel from reaching 15 billion gallons, even with the incentives provided by the RFS program and after accounting for the projected increase in the availability of higher-level ethanol blends such as E15 and E85. Such higher-level ethanol blends are an avenue through which higher volumes of renewable fuel can be used in the transportation sector to reduce GHG emissions and improve energy security over time. Incentives created by the implied conventional renewable fuel volume requirement contribute to the economic attractiveness of these fuels. However, we expect the constraints that currently limit adoption of these blends, and ethanol consumption as a whole, to continue to exist through 2027. The difficulty in reaching 15 billion gallons with ethanol is compounded by the fact that gasoline demand for 2026 and 2027 is expected to continue to decline over time in line with likely vehicle efficiency improvements.
We do not believe that constraints on ethanol consumption should be the single determining factor in the appropriate level of conventional renewable fuel to establish for 2026 and 2027. The implied volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel is not a requirement for ethanol, nor even for conventional renewable fuel. Instead, conventional renewable fuel is the portion of total renewable fuel that is not required to be advanced biofuel. The implied volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel can be satisfied by any approved renewable fuel. Examples of non-ethanol renewable fuels that regularly contribute to this volume include conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel, as well as advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel beyond what is required by the advanced biofuel volume requirement. For these reasons, we choose to propose the appropriate level of conventional renewable fuel on a broader basis than just the amount of conventional ethanol likely to be consumed each year.
While this segment of the RFS program creates opportunities for all approved renewable fuels to contribute, EPA's analysis of several of the statutory factors also highlights, in our view, the importance of ongoing support for corn ethanol generally and for an implied conventional renewable fuel volume requirement that helps to incentivize the domestic consumption of corn ethanol. Moreover, sustained and predictable support of higher-level ethanol blends through consistent implied conventional renewable fuel volume requirements help provide some longer-term incentives for the market to invest in the necessary infrastructure. The benefits of this approach include potential increases in employment and economic impact, most notably for corn farmers, but also positive impacts on ethanol producers and related ethanol blending and distribution activities. The rural economies surrounding these industries also benefit from strong demand for ethanol. Increased demand for higher-level ethanol blends could also increase employment and economic impact more broadly if retail station owners respond to the incentives created by the RFS program and other federal actions by investing in infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of higher-level ethanol blends at their stations. In addition, the consumption of renewable fuels, including domestically produced ethanol, reduces our reliance on foreign sources of petroleum imports and increases the energy security status of the U.S. as discussed in Section IV.B.
Most corn ethanol production occurs in facilities that commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007. This fuel is “grandfathered” under the provisions of 40 CFR 80.1403 and thus is not required to achieve a 20 percent reduction in GHGs in comparison to gasoline, pursuant to CAA section 211(o)(2)(A)(i). Nevertheless, based on both our assessment of corn ethanol in the RFS2 Rule and our assessment of GHG impacts for this rule, summarized in Section IV.A, corn ethanol provides GHG reductions in comparison to gasoline. Greater volumes of ethanol consumed thus correspond to greater GHG reductions than would be the case if gasoline was consumed instead of ethanol.
We are projecting that total ethanol consumption will be lower in 2026 and 2027 than it was in previous years despite the increase in consumption of E15 and E85, as discussed in Sections III. At the same time, we are projecting that sufficient BBD and other non-ethanol advanced biofuels will be available in 2026 and 2027 to compensate for this reduction in ethanol consumption and to enable an implied volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel of 15 billion gallons to be met. We are thus proposing to set the implied conventional renewable fuel volume requirement for 2026 and 2027 at 15 billion gallons.
In our assessment of supply-related factors, we focused on those factors that could directly or indirectly impact the consumption of renewable fuel in the U.S. and thereby determined the potential number of RINs generated in each year that could be available for compliance with the applicable standards in those same years. However, carryover RINs represent another source of RINs that can be used for compliance. We therefore investigated whether and to what degree carryover RINs should be considered in the context of
CAA section 211(o)(5) requires that EPA establish a credit program as part of its RFS regulations, and that the credits be valid for obligated parties to show compliance for 12 months as of the date of generation. EPA implemented this requirement through the use of RINs, which are generated for the production of qualifying renewable fuels. Obligated parties can comply by blending renewable fuels into the transportation fuel supply themselves, or by purchasing RINs that represent the renewable fuels that other parties have blended into the supply. RINs can be used to demonstrate compliance for the year in which they are generated or the subsequent compliance year. Obligated parties can obtain more RINs than they need in a given compliance year, allowing them to “carry over” these excess RINs for use in the subsequent compliance year, although the RFS regulations limit the use of these carryover RINs to 20 percent of the obligated party's renewable volume obligation (RVO).
As noted in past RFS annual rules, carryover RINs are a foundational element of the design and implementation of the RFS program.
Just as the economy as a whole is able to function efficiently when individuals and businesses prudently plan for unforeseen events by maintaining inventories and reserve money accounts, we believe that the RFS program is best able to function when sufficient carryover RINs are held in reserve for potential use by the RIN holders themselves, or for possible sale to others that may not have established their own carryover RIN reserves. Without sufficient RINs in reserve, even minor disruptions causing shortfalls in renewable fuel production or distribution, or higher-than-expected transportation fuel demand (requiring greater volumes of renewable fuel to comply with the percentage standards that apply to all volumes of transportation fuel, including the unexpected volumes) could result in deficits and/or noncompliance by parties without RIN reserves. Moreover, because carryover RINs are individually and unequally held by market participants, a non-zero but nevertheless small number of available carryover RINs may negatively impact the RIN market, even when the market overall could satisfy the standards. In such a case, market disruptions could force the need for a retroactive waiver of the standards, undermining the market certainty so critical to the RFS program. For all these reasons, carryover RINs provide a necessary programmatic buffer that helps facilitate compliance by individual obligated parties, provides for smooth overall functioning of the program to the benefit of all market participants, and is consistent with the statutory provision requiring the generation and use of credits.
Carryover RINs have also provided flexibility when EPA has considered the need to use its waiver authorities to lower volumes. For example, in the context of the 2013 RFS rulemaking we noted that an abundance of carryover RINs available in that year, together with possible increases in renewable fuel production and import, justified maintaining the advanced and total renewable fuel volume requirements for that year at the levels specified in the statute.
The projected number of available carryover RINs after compliance with the 2023 standards (
Assuming that the market exactly meets the 2024 and 2025 standards with new RIN generation, these are also the number of carryover RINs that would be available for 2026 and 2027. While we project that the volume requirements in 2024 and 2025 and the volume scenarios for 2026 and 2027 could be achieved without the use of carryover RINs, there is nevertheless some uncertainty about how the market would choose to meet the applicable standards. The result is that there remains some uncertainty surrounding the ultimate number of carryover RINs that will be available for compliance with the 2026 and 2027 standards. In particular, as discussed in DRIA Chapter 1.8, the number of available carryover RINs has decreased significantly in recent years. While on an absolute basis there should still be RINs available to purchase in the marketplace, as shown in Table III.C.4.a-1, in reality the magnitude of compliance deficits is even larger, making their availability less certain. Furthermore, we note that there have been enforcement actions in past years that have resulted in the retirement of carryover RINs to make up for the generation and use of invalid RINs and/or the failure to retire RINs for exported renewable fuel. To the extent that there are enforcement actions in the future, they could have similar results and require that obligated parties or renewable fuel exporters settle past enforcement-related obligations in addition to complying with the annual standards. In light of these uncertainties, the number of available carryover RINs could be larger or smaller than the number projected in Table V.E.1-1.
We continue to believe that carryover RINs serve a vital programmatic function, but also acknowledge that the effective number of cellulosic and conventional renewable fuel carryover RINs is zero, and that the effective number of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel carryover RINs is significantly lower than it has been in recent years and may be necessary to make up for the significant conventional biofuel deficits. Should the market fall short of the volumes we are finalizing, obligated parties will continue to be able to carry forward a RIN deficit from one year into the next, although they may not carry forward a deficit for consecutive years. Conversely, should the market over-comply with the standards we are finalizing, the number of available carryover RINs could again grow.
We evaluated the number of carryover RINs projected to be available and considered whether we should include any portion of them in the determination of the volume scenarios that we analyzed or the volume requirements that we are proposing for 2026 and 2027. Doing so would be equivalent to intentionally drawing down the number of available carryover RINs in setting those volume requirements. After due consideration, we do not believe that this would be appropriate and we propose to avoid intentionally drawing down any portion of the projected number of available carryover RINs in the Proposed Volumes. In reaching this determination, we considered the functions of carryover RINs, the projected number available, the uncertainties associated with this projection, the potential impact of carryover RINs on the production and use of renewable fuel, the ability and need for obligated parties to draw on carryover RINs to comply with their obligations (both on an individual basis and on a market-wide basis), and the impacts of drawing down the number of available carryover RINs on obligated parties and the fuels market more broadly. As previously described, carryover RINs provide important and necessary programmatic functions—including as a cost spike buffer—that will both facilitate individual compliance and provide for smooth overall functioning of the program. We believe that a balanced consideration of the possible role of carryover RINs in achieving the volume requirements, versus maintaining an adequate number of carryover RINs for important programmatic functions, is appropriate when EPA exercises its discretion under its statutory authorities.
Furthermore, in this action we are proposing to prospectively establish volume requirements for multiple years. This inherently adds uncertainty and makes it more challenging to project with accuracy the number of carryover RINs that will be available for each of these years. Given these factors, and the uneven holding of carryover RINs among obligated parties, we believe that further increasing the volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 with the intent to draw down the number of available carryover RINs could lead to significant deficit carryforwards and noncompliance by some obligated parties. We do not believe this would be a desirable outcome. Therefore, consistent with the approach we have taken in recent annual rules, we are not proposing to set the 2026 and 2027 volume requirements at levels that would intentionally draw down the projected number of available carryover RINs.
We are not determining that the number of carryover RINs projected in Table V.E.1-1 is a bright-line threshold for the number of carryover RINs that provides sufficient market liquidity and allows carryover RINs to play their important programmatic functions. As in past years, we are instead evaluating, on a case-by-case basis, the number of available carryover RINs in the context of the RFS standards and the broader transportation fuel market. Based upon this holistic, case-by-case evaluation, we are concluding that it would be inappropriate to intentionally reduce the number of carryover RINs by establishing higher volumes than what we anticipate the market can achieve in 2026 and 2027. Conversely, while a larger number of available carryover RINs may provide greater assurance of market liquidity, we do not believe it would be appropriate to set the standards at levels specifically designed (
For the reasons described above, we are proposing RFS volume requirements based on the three component categories discussed above. The volumes for each of the component categories (sometimes referred to as implied volume requirements) are summarized in Table V.F-1. Table V.F-1 also includes the proposed volume requirements for BBD, which is not a component category of renewable fuel but is based on our evaluation of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel and other considerations described in Section V.C.
The proposed volumes for each of the four component categories shown in the table above can be combined to produce volume requirements for the four statutory renewable fuel categories on which the applicable percentage standards are based. The results are shown in Table V.F-2.
We believe that these volume requirements will preserve and substantially build upon the gains made through biofuels in previous years. These proposed volume requirements, in combination with the proposed import RIN reduction provisions, would continue to support the domestic renewable fuel industry and help move the U.S. towards greater energy independence and energy security. These proposed volume standards are expected to drive increased employment and economic impact in the U.S. and are projected to achieve additional reductions in GHG emissions from the transportation sector. The proposed volume requirements would also promote ongoing development within the biofuels and agriculture industries as well as the economies of the rural areas in which biofuels production facilities and feedstock production reside.
We request comment on alternative volume requirements for each of the statutory categories of renewable fuel for 2026 and 2027, including volumes both higher and lower than we are proposing and appropriate volumes if the proposed provisions to reduce the number of RINs generated for imported renewable fuel and renewable fuel produced from foreign feedstocks are not finalized. Our analysis of the Low and High Volume Scenarios summarized in Section IV and presented in greater detail in the DRIA provides an indication of the potential impacts of alternative volumes. Note that while the Proposed Volumes (expressed in billion RINs) are similar to the Low Volume Scenario and lower than the High Volume Scenario, we project that the Proposed Volumes would result in significantly higher renewable fuel production and consumption in the U.S. than either the Low or High Volume Scenario, particularly for domestic renewable fuel, due to the proposed import RIN reduction provisions.
We also request that commenters provide any data or analysis that would support alternative volumes for these years. In particular, we request comment on our proposed approach of accounting for the projected shortfall in the supply of conventional renewable fuel relative to the 15-billion-gallon implied volume when establishing the volume requirements for advanced biofuel and BBD (see Section V.B for a description of this approach). We request comment on the advantages and disadvantages of establishing BBD and advanced biofuel volume requirements at levels at or closer to the projected supplies of these fuels, as has been suggested by some stakeholders, and the implications of doing so on the implied volume of conventional renewable fuel if such an approach were adopted.
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) requires EPA to assess specific factors when determining volume requirements for calendar years after 2022. These factors are described in Section I and each factor is discussed in detail in the DRIA. However, the statute does not specify how EPA must assess each factor or address whether the EPA Administrator should monetize particular factors, quantify particular factors, or analyze particular factors qualitatively in reaching a determination. For several of these statutory factors—costs and energy security—we provide estimates of the monetized impacts of the proposed volume standards. For the other statutory factors, we are either unable to quantify impacts, or we provide quantitative estimated impacts that nevertheless cannot be easily monetized. Thus, we are unable to quantitatively compare all the evaluated impacts of this rulemaking and are also unable to compare all quantitative impacts on a consistent basis. Our assessments of the impacts of the proposed volume standards mirrors our assessment of the Volume Scenarios discussed in Section IV. That is, we compared the difference in estimated outcomes under the proposed volume standards to the estimated outcomes under the No RFS Baseline.
Assessed effects of the proposed volume standards on the factors enumerated below differ in the directions of their respective impacts. That is, some assessments show benefits of the proposed volume standards from the factor(s) in question, others show negative impacts, while still others show impacts with ambiguous or different directional effects. Factors with analyses showing benefits of the proposed volume standards include impacts on jobs, rural economic development, energy security benefits, and the potential for climate benefits. Assessed factors with analyses indicating costs or directionally negative effects of the proposed volume standards include impacts on fuel costs, water and soil resources, and impacts of induced land use change on ecosystems. Our assessment of the effects of the proposed volume standards on other factors show ambiguous or mixed directional impacts. These factors include effects on the supply and price of some agricultural commodities, air quality impacts, and impacts on infrastructure. All the statutory factors are taken under consideration, as is required by the statute, regardless of whether we were able to quantify or
In this section, we summarize our estimates of the impacts of the Proposed Volumes on economy-wide employment and rural economic development (both include direct, indirect, and induced impacts). These analyses are described in detail in DRIA Chapter 9.
To estimate the impact of this proposed rule on jobs (relative to the No RFS baseline), we applied the same two analytical approaches described in Section IV.D—the “rule-of-thumb” approach and the use of input-output modeling where feasible. These results are summarized in Table V.H.1-1. For the corn ethanol case, using the results from the IO analysis we have developed ranges of impacts for fuel volumes based on uncertainty regarding how the volumes will be provided. For example, volumes associated with new production capacity would also be associated with some number of temporary construction jobs, while expanded capacity utilization at existing facilities would not. These ranges of potential impacts are summarized in tables in Chapter 9 along with detailed explanations of the associated methodology.
We estimate that all three categories of renewable fuel we analyzed—ethanol, BBD, and RNG—are associated with increases in jobs to varying degrees. We observe that RNG appears to be associated with the highest number of direct jobs created per unit of biofuel. However, BBD is projected to have the highest job creation impact overall, primarily due to substantially higher production increases relative to the baseline. In terms of rural employment specifically, ethanol has the highest direct and total effects per million gallons of ethanol equivalent. Relative to the No RFS Baseline and accounting for direct, indirect, and induced effects, BBD is projected to have the highest impact on agricultural employment, mainly due to substantially higher production increases relative to the baseline.
We also estimate that ethanol, BBD, and RNG are all associated with increased rural economic development, again to varying degrees. Since renewable fuels rely on agricultural feedstocks, we use the GDP impacts associated with agricultural feedstocks to infer the effects on rural economic development. We estimate that BBD and ethanol have higher impacts per million gallons of ethanol equivalent on rural economic development than does RNG. Relative to the No RFS Baseline and accounting for direct, indirect, and induced effects, BBD is projected to have the highest impact on rural economic development, largely due to substantially higher production increases relative to the baseline.
Table V.H.1-1 summarizes the estimated economy-wide job impacts and rural GDP impacts (including direct, indirect, and induced impacts) associated with the proposed volumes of ethanol, BBD, and RNG. These estimates of rural GDP impacts are actual values as opposed to discounted values, implying that they do not reflect the time value of money.
Our estimates are subject to the limitations and assumptions of the methods employed. They are not meant to be exact estimates, but rather to provide an estimate of general magnitude. In addition, our estimates for jobs and rural development impacts are gross estimates and not net estimates. To be more accurate, the job estimates are labor demand in the directly regulated industry. We also acknowledge that, in the long run, environmental regulations such as the RFS program typically affect the distribution of employment among industries rather than the general employment level.
We request comment on our approaches to estimating jobs and rural economic development impacts associated with renewable fuels.
Our analysis shows that the Proposed Volumes would have a positive impact on energy security by reducing U.S. reliance on foreign sources of energy. Monetized energy security impacts of the Proposed Volumes are summarized in Table V.H.2-1. Energy security and methods of quantifying energy security impacts are discussed in Section IV.A and DRIA Chapter 6.
Our analysis of the effects of the Proposed Volumes on climate change shows a range of potential GHG emissions impacts, from 29 million metric tons of cumulative CO
The methodology used to estimate fuel costs is summarized in Section IV.B, while a detailed summary of the methodology is contained in DRIA Chapter 10. The estimated fuel costs for the Proposed Volumes (including the impacts of the proposed import RIN reduction provisions) are presented in Tables V.H.4-1 through 3, while the estimated fuel costs for the Volume Scenarios are summarized in Section IV.B.2.
We also estimated the impact of the Proposed Volumes on the cost to transport goods. However, it is not appropriate to use the social cost for this analysis as the fuel prices include a number of other factors, such as state and federal incentives, that we do not consider in our social cost estimates. The per-unit costs from Table V.H.4-2 are adjusted to reflect RIN price impacts and account for the biofuel subsidies and other market factors, and the resulting values can be thought of as retail costs. Consistent with our assessment of the fuels markets, we have assumed that obligated parties pass through their RIN costs to consumers and that fuel blenders reflect the RIN value of the renewable fuels in the price of the blended fuels they sell.
For estimating the cost to transport goods, we focus on the impact on diesel fuel prices since trucks that transport goods are normally fueled by diesel fuel. Reviewing the data in Table V.H.5-1, the largest projected price increase is 10.6¢ per gallon for diesel fuel in 2027 for the No RFS Baseline.
The impact of fuel price increases on the price of goods can be estimated based on a USDA study that analyzed the impact of fuel prices on the wholesale price of produce.
Increases in volumes—particularly BBD volumes—attributable to this action could lead to potential increases in agricultural land conversion to produce biofuel feedstocks. Such land use changes could subsequently contribute to negative impacts to water and soil quality, water quantity, and ecosystems and habitat. This is discussed further in DRIA Chapters 4.2 through 4.5.
We evaluated the Proposed Volumes and how they may impact the existing renewable fuels infrastructure required for product distribution. This includes whether the current infrastructure system is sufficient to accommodate the increases in the Proposed Volumes and potential changes that could occur with volume increase and future demand. Based on our analysis, we project that the proposed renewable fuel volumes will be compatible with existing infrastructure and that the supply of these fuels will not adversely impact the infrastructure required for product distribution. A more detailed summary of this analysis can be found in DRIA Chapter 8.
We project that the supply of commodities used for biofuel production, such as corn and soybeans, will continue to increase in future years primarily due to yield increases, consistent with historic trends. It is possible that increasing demand for biofuel feedstocks such as soybean oil will divert these feedstocks from other markets; however, we project that most of the increase in the use of agricultural commodities used for biofuel production will be met by increased production of these feedstocks rather than diversion from existing markets. See DRIA Chapter 9.2 for more detail on our analysis of the impact of biofuel production on the supply of commodities.
We expect some localized increases in some air pollutant concentrations due to the Proposed Volumes, particularly at locations near biofuel production and transport routes. Overall, considering end use, transport, and production, emission changes are expected to have variable impacts on ambient concentrations of pollutants in specific locations across the U.S. Air quality impacts are discussed further in DRIA Chapter 4.1.
Our analysis indicates that the Proposed Volumes would have only a minimal impact on agricultural commodity and food prices, with any resulting price increases expected to be small. A summary of the estimated impacts is provided in Table V.H.10-1, and further discussion can be found in DRIA Chapters 9.3 and 9.4.
EPA implements the nationally applicable volume requirements by establishing percentage standards that apply to obligated parties.
The formulas used to calculate the percentage standards applicable to obligated parties are provided in 40 CFR 80.1405(c). In addition to the required volumes of renewable fuel, the formulas also require estimates of the volumes of non-renewable gasoline and diesel, for both highway and nonroad uses, that are projected to be used in the year in which the standards will apply. Consistent with previous RFS rulemakings, we are using gasoline and diesel projections provided by EIA—specifically AEO2023, as this is the most recent projection from EIA that covers 2026 and 2027.
In CAA section 211(o)(9), Congress provided for qualifying small refineries to be temporarily exempt from RFS compliance through December 31, 2010. Congress also provided in CAA section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii)(II) and (B)(i) that small refineries could receive an extension of the exemption beyond 2010 based either on the results of a required Department of Energy (DOE) study or in response to individual petitions demonstrating that the small refinery suffered “disproportionate economic hardship.”
There is currently significant uncertainty regarding the number of small refinery exemption (SRE) petitions that could be granted for 2026 and 2027. While we stated that “we anticipate that no SREs will be granted for these future years” in the Set 1 Rule (referring to 2023-2025) due to the SRE Denial Actions that had recently been issued,
While there remains uncertainty in the volume of gasoline and diesel that will be exempt in 2026 and 2027, we have developed an upper- and lower-bound estimate of this exempt volume. We currently project that there are approximately 34 qualifying and operational small refineries producing up to approximately 18 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel each year, or about 10 percent of the total reported volume of obligated gasoline and diesel. Therefore, the potential range of exempt volumes from SREs that could be included in the calculation specified by 40 CFR 80.1405(c) for 2026 and 2027 ranges from zero gallons (if EPA denied all SRE petitions) to 18 billion gallons (if EPA granted all SRE petitions).
We have used these estimates to calculate both an upper- and lower-bound on the potential percentage standards for 2026 and 2027. While we are still developing our new approach to evaluating SRE petitions, for purposes of the proposed percentage standards in this action, we have used a volume of 18 billion gallons of exempt gasoline and diesel (
This proposed rule, consistent with our regulations, proposes to project the exempt volume of gasoline and diesel associated with SREs for the 2026 and 2027 compliance years only. This proposed rule does not address any exempt volume from the potential grant of SREs for prior compliance years (
The formulas used to calculate the percentage standards applicable to obligated parties as a function of their gasoline and diesel fuel production or importation are provided in 40 CFR 80.1405(c).
In the Set 1 Rule, EPA promulgated RFS volume requirements and percentage standards for 2023-2025. As part of that rulemaking, EPA projected that 1.38 billion cellulosic RINs would be generated in 2025 and used that volume to establish the 2025 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard of 0.81 percent.
We currently project that the supply of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in 2025 will exceed the required volumes by a significant margin, despite the projected shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. Given the projected surplus of 2025 advanced RINs, we are not proposing to waive the volume requirements for any of the other categories of renewable fuel (
The cellulosic waiver authority at CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) provides that “[f]or any calendar year for which the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume established under [CAA section 211(o)](2)(B)], as determined by the Administrator based on the estimate provided under paragraph (3)(A),” EPA “shall reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel required under paragraph (2)(B) to the projected volume available during that calendar year” and that this reduction shall be made “not later than November 30 of the preceding calendar year.” For those years in which EPA “makes such a reduction,” the statute further provides that EPA may also “reduce the applicable volume of renewable fuel and advanced biofuels requirement . . . by the same or a lesser volume.” As such, even when EPA exercises its cellulosic waiver authority, the determination of whether to correspondingly reduce the total renewable fuel or advanced biofuel requirements is discretionary.
When EPA determines that the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production for a given year will be less than the annual applicable volume established under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B), EPA is then required to reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel for that calendar year. Pursuant to this provision, EPA set the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement lower than the CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) statutory volumes enumerated by Congress for each year from 2010-2022. EPA was challenged regarding its interpretation of this statutory provision, leading the D.C. Circuit to evaluate various aspects of EPA's implementation of its cellulosic waiver authority.
EPA is proposing to implement the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume after the deadline articulated in the statute; CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) directs EPA to act “by November 30 of the preceding calendar year” to determine whether cellulosic biofuel production is likely to fall short of the volume requirements in a given year, and then reduce the standard to the projected volume available. EPA has implemented the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume after the November 30 deadline on several
CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) also refers to the “projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production” and the “projected volume available,” which some parties have suggested is another indication that the provision should or could only be used prospectively. EPA believes the best reading of the statute is instead that there are projections necessary to determine the “volume of . . . production” and the “volume available,” both when EPA acts in a timely manner by November 30 of the preceding year and when EPA waives the volume requirement after the November 30 date. The use of the term “projected” in the statute does contemplate the need for forward-looking estimates; however, it does not follow that the statutory language prohibits EPA from acting after November 30.
We note that the statutory language indicates that the use of the cellulosic waiver authority is mandatory. That is, whenever the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume established under CAA section (o)(2)(B), CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) provides that EPA “shall reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel required under paragraph (2)(B) to the projected volume available during that calendar year.” EPA implemented this provision for every year from 2010-2022 and again in 2024 to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume consistent with the statutory directive that EPA shall reduce the volume when the requisite conditions are met.
CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(ii) directs EPA to make cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs) available whenever it reduces the cellulosic biofuel volume under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D). CWCs—which are offered for sale to obligated parties at a price established by regulation
CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) provides that EPA may reduce the applicable volume of total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel in years when EPA reduces the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel under that provision. That reduction must be less than or equal to the reduction in cellulosic biofuel. The D.C. Circuit explained:
There is no requirement to reduce these latter quotas, nor does the statute prescribe any factors that EPA must consider in making its decision. . . . In the absence of any express or implied statutory directive to consider particular factors, EPA reasonably concluded that it enjoys broad discretion regarding whether and in what circumstances to reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes under the cellulosic waiver provision.
Using this discretion, EPA has, in the past, declined to reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes in certain circumstances.
Currently, nearly all cellulosic RINs are generated from the production and use of biogas-derived CNG and LNG.
The cellulosic waiver authority is specific regarding when it is available and how the volume reduction should be determined when acting under the authority, as discussed in Section VII.A. EPA has determined that “the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume” for 2025. In the Set 1 Rule, EPA established the “minimum applicable volume” of cellulosic biofuel for 2025 to be 1.38 billion RINs and used that volume to calculate the 2025 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard of 0.81 percent.
When EPA determines that a waiver of the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement is appropriate under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i), EPA must then reduce the required cellulosic biofuel volume to “the projected volume available.” We have previously interpreted the phrase “projected volume available” to exclude carryover RINs when determining the volume adjustment to be made; this interpretation was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit in
As discussed in Section VII.B, the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel available in 2025 is 1.19 billion RINs. Thus, when the cellulosic waiver authority is applied, EPA is only able to reduce the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume to the projected volume available of 1.19 billion RINs. However, in accordance with the statute, EPA is also required to make CWCs available to obligated parties, which can be used—along with additional BBD or advanced RINs—to cover any remaining shortfall.
Given that “the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume” for 2025, we are proposing to implement the cellulosic waiver authority to waive the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement to 1.19 billion RINs, a reduction of 0.19 billion RINs from the original volume requirement of 1.38 billion RINs. This proposed volume requirement matches the projected cellulosic RIN generation for 2025 of 1.19 billion RINs.
Finally, CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) provides that EPA may reduce the applicable volume of total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel in years when EPA reduces the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel under that provision. That reduction must be less than or equal to the reduction in cellulosic biofuel. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the cellulosic waiver authority provides EPA “broad discretion” to consider a variety of factors in determining whether to reduce the total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel volumes under this provision.
We believe reductions to the 2025 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes are not necessary or warranted based on the available supply data, given that the market is projected to provide volumes of these fuels in excess of the requirements established in the Set 1 Rule. Reductions in these volume requirements at this time would only serve to increase the number of advanced and total carryover RINs. Historically, we have declined to take actions that would inflate the number of available carryover RINs.
The proposed partial waiver of the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement is expected to have an economic impact. However, quantitatively projecting the economic impact of this reduction is challenging for several reasons. First, the proposed partial waiver is due to a shortfall in the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2025. Because of this, higher volumes of cellulosic RINs cannot simply be made available at greater prices; instead, obligated parties will be unable to purchase additional quantities of 2025 cellulosic RINs at any price. The potential economic impact of this action is further complicated by the fact that while some obligated parties can defer some or all of their 2025 cellulosic biofuel obligation to 2026, other obligated parties that carry cellulosic RIN deficits from 2024 into 2025 will be required to fully satisfy their cellulosic biofuel obligations in 2025, including the cellulosic RIN deficits carried forward from 2024. Any party that fails to do so would likely be in non-compliance and could be subject to penalties.
Despite the complications associated with estimating the economic impacts of this action, we can determine that it would result in cost savings. We are proposing to reduce only the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume. Because we are not proposing to reduce the 2025 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes, this action would effectively replace the reduced cellulosic biofuel volume with additional volumes of advanced biofuel, which generally has a lower marginal cost than cellulosic biofuel.
Finally, we can reasonably project that because this action would reduce demand for cellulosic RINs, it is expected to directionally decrease cellulosic RIN prices. The exact magnitude of this price reduction depends on a wide range of market factors that prevent us from quantitively projecting a RIN price impact. At the same time, because this action incrementally increases demand for advanced RINs, it is projected to directionally increase BBD and advanced RIN prices. We note, however, that this price impact is expected to be relatively small, as this action would increase demand for advanced biofuel by the magnitude of the proposed partial waiver of the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement (0.19 billion RINs).
As described in Section VII.C, we are proposing to implement the cellulosic waiver authority to partially waive the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement from 1.38 billion RINs to 1.19 billion RINs. As described in Section VI, the formula used to calculate the cellulosic biofuel percentage standard applicable to obligated parties as a function of their gasoline and diesel fuel production or importation is provided in 40 CFR 80.1405(c). Using the same values from the Set 1 Rule for the variables in this formula other than RFV
In this action, we are proposing an “import RIN reduction” for imported renewable fuel and renewable fuel produced domestically from foreign feedstocks.
This proposal is intended to support the statutory goals of energy independence and the Administration's broader economic vision of strengthening American energy independence and bolstering domestic agricultural markets. By implementing an import RIN reduction, EPA aims to reduce America's reliance on import-based renewable fuels, enhance energy
The RFS program began in 2006 pursuant to the requirements of EPAct, the stated purpose of which was to “ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.”
From the inception of the RFS program, EPA has allowed for imported renewable fuel and renewable fuel produced domestically from foreign feedstocks to generate RINs, provided EPA is assured that certain statutory criteria have been met. EPA thus acknowledges that we have historically placed import-based renewable fuel on an equal footing with domestic-based renewable fuel. The number of RINs generated for import-based renewable fuel has been the same as the number of RINs generated for domestic-based renewable fuel.
While EPA has historically treated import-based renewable fuel as equal to domestic-based renewable fuel, there is nothing in CAA section 211(o) that requires providing the same benefits to foreign entities as domestic entities. CAA section 211(o)(5)(A) simply provides that EPA's regulations must provide “for the generation of an appropriate amount of credits” by entities covered by the RFS program, without further specifying how “an appropriate amount of credits” should be determined. The term “appropriate” necessarily leaves agencies with flexibility to implement statutory programs, so long as that discretion is exercised consistent with the context and structure in which the term appears.
In this action, EPA is proposing to modify the treatment of import-based renewable fuels under the RFS program for the reasons discussed below and in Section VIII.B. EPA requests comment on this issue and on any relevant statutory interpretation issues that bear on EPA's authority to differentiate among suppliers when assigning RINs for reasons based on the statutes' language, legislative history, and purposes.
As noted above, the purpose statements of both EPAct and EISA make it clear that Congress intended the RFS program to, among other goals discussed further below, support American agriculture and strengthen rural economies in the U.S. While the RFS program has furthered these goals, the recent influx of imported renewable fuels and feedstocks threatens those gains and the RFS program's ability to build on them.
In 2021, import-based renewable fuel accounted for approximately 25 percent of the total biodiesel and renewable diesel supply. By 2024, such imports surged to nearly 45 percent of the U.S. biodiesel and renewable diesel market.
EPA is concerned that the increasing amounts of foreign feedstocks, such as UCO and animal fats from China, Southeast Asia, and South America, may be displacing U.S.-produced feedstocks like corn and soybean oil in the renewable fuels market. This shift comes at a time when American farmers are already struggling due to declining revenues. According to USDA, net farm income is projected to fall by approximately $32 billion from 2022 to 2024.
The import RIN reduction proposed in this action would help American farmers by ensuring demand for domestic-based renewable fuels. Renewable fuel producers would be able to generate more RINs (and thus realize greater RIN value) for renewable fuels produced from domestic feedstocks relative to foreign feedstocks. This dynamic would increase the willingness for domestic renewable producers to pay higher prices for domestic feedstocks relative to foreign feedstocks because, all else equal, they would be able to generate higher revenue for fuels produced from domestic feedstocks. In turn, the higher prices offered for domestic feedstocks would increase the revenue of domestic feedstock producers and provide incentives for increased production of domestic feedstocks. By ensuring support for domestic feedstocks and fuels, it is our expectation that the proposed approach will revitalize domestic demand for American crops, stabilize farm incomes, and stimulate economic growth in rural communities.
Consistent with our understanding of the original Congressional intent for the RFS program, EPA believes any economic benefits derived from the RFS program should be retained in the U.S. to the maximum extent practicable. We do not believe that Congress intended to create a program to benefit foreign producers. However, there is significant concern that the increased importation of feedstocks and fuels observed above may indicate that such foreign producers are benefiting from the economic incentives intended to stimulate rural American communities. As a U.S. federal program, the RFS program was designed to promote American agricultural prosperity. The proposed import RIN reduction provisions further that goal and ensures American farmers and domestic
Reducing U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources is a cornerstone of this Administration's energy policy. As discussed in detail in Section IV and DRIA Chapter 6, it is also a foundational goal of the RFS program. Although import-based renewable fuels contribute to U.S. energy supply and help to hedge against reliance on foreign fossil fuel producers, reliance on these imports risks creating the exact vulnerabilities that the RFS program was intended to forestall. Global supply chain disruptions, trade disputes, and geopolitical instability can impact the renewable fuel and feedstock markets, leading to increased price volatility across the RIN market, renewable fuel and feedstock markets, and gasoline and diesel markets.
The import RIN reduction would encourage greater investment in domestic-based renewable fuel production. By putting America's farmers and renewable fuel producers first, the proposed import RIN reduction provisions would also strengthen America's energy independence and resilience by reducing exposure to global market disruptions and securing self-reliance in the supply of domestic-based renewable fuels.
The core objective of EPA—to protect human health and the environment—is also the focus of our administration of the RFS program. We believe that allowing import-based renewable fuels to have equal RIN generation potential undermines this goal, particularly when there are concerns over the validity of imported feedstocks.
One of the most widely used feedstocks used to produce import-based renewable fuels is UCO. Substantial challenges already exist regarding EPA's ability to verify whether the requirements for imported UCO under the RFS program have been satisfied. Recently, industry experts have raised additional concerns that some UCO shipments may be fraudulently labeled or adulterated with unused palm oil. Propagation of palm trees for oil production has devastating environmental costs and undermines the GHG emissions-reduction goals of the RFS program.
The proposed import RIN reduction provisions would not prohibit imports but would instead signal to market participants that domestic-based renewable fuels—manufactured under closely monitored U.S. environmental standards—are preferable. By rewarding domestic-based renewable fuels with full RIN generation potential, EPA would reinforce environmental protection and strengthen the integrity of the RFS program without sacrificing the flexibility to utilize import-based renewable fuels when necessary.
In sum, the RFS program was designed with clear objectives: to reduce GHG emissions, expand the U.S. renewable fuel sector in support of domestic producers and rural economies, and decrease reliance on foreign energy. However, the rising share of import-based renewable fuel undermines these goals by:
• Redirecting the economic benefits of the program away from American farmers and rural communities.
• Increasing America's exposure to volatile global fuel and commodity trade dynamics.
• Increasing America's reliance on foreign sources of fuel and supplies necessary to produce fuel domestically.
By implementing the proposed import RIN reduction, EPA seeks to restore the benefits of the RFS program to its originally intended recipients. This approach would ensure that the program continues to achieve these important goals while prioritizing domestic economic prosperity.
Historically, EPA used “equivalence values” to determine how many RINs a given quantity of renewable fuel generates.
We propose using the same statutory language to justify reduced RIN generation for import-based renewable fuel. Section 211(o)(5)(A) states that EPA “shall provide” for “the generation of an appropriate amount of credits by any person that refines, blends, or imports . . . a quantity of renewable fuel” and “for the generation of an appropriate amount of credits for biodiesel.” In establishing equivalence values, EPA highlighted these statutory provisions as “evidence that Congress did not limit this program solely to a straight volume measurement of gallons in the context of the RFS program.”
In doing so, EPA is not advancing a new interpretation of CAA section 211(o)(5)(A). Rather, we are proposing a change in policy consistent with EPA's existing understanding of that provision's delegation of discretion. This new policy would further delineate the amount of credits (
In proposing this policy change, EPA is observing the relevant procedural standards by acknowledging how the new policy departs from the status quo; by demonstrating the new policy is permissible under the statute and that “there are good reasons for it;” and by asserting, as this section does, that the agency believes the new policy is an improvement upon the status quo.
To implement the proposed import RIN reduction for import-based renewable fuel, we are proposing to specify under 40 CFR 80.1426(a) that the following parties must reduce the number of RINs generated for the specified renewable fuel by 50 percent:
• RIN-generating foreign producers, for all renewable fuel produced.
• RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel, for all imported renewable fuel.
• Domestic renewable fuel producers, for all renewable fuel produced from foreign feedstocks or foreign biointermediates.
We believe this is the most straightforward way to implement the proposed import RIN reduction, rather than proposing a separate set of RIN generation equations for import RINs. We request comment on the proposed import RIN generation requirement, and whether there are alternative RIN generation approaches that we should consider for implementing the import RIN reduction.
Since we are proposing that the import RIN reduction would apply to all foreign-produced renewable fuel, regardless of whether it is produced from domestic or foreign feedstocks, we are not proposing any additional requirements for RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel and RIN-generating foreign renewable fuel producers. They would only be able to generate import RINs for the renewable fuel they produce or import, and thus no changes would be necessary in their registration, recordkeeping, reporting, or attest engagement requirements.
However, there remain potential concerns regarding mislabeling of foreign feedstocks under the RFS program. We are concerned that bad actors may try to claim foreign feedstock as domestic to gain a financial benefit. Thus, to ensure that domestic renewable fuel producers are generating the appropriate number of RINs for each batch of renewable fuel they produce, we are proposing several changes to their recordkeeping, reporting, attest engagement, and quality assurance plan (QAP) requirements that we believe are minimally onerous while protecting domestic feedstock producers. First, we are proposing that all domestic renewable fuel producers be required to keep records of feedstock purchases and transfers (
Feedstock point of origin would depend on the feedstock type but would generally be considered to be the location, either domestic or foreign, where a feedstock is grown, produced, generated, extracted, collected, or harvested. More specifically, we are proposing the following specific provisions related to what is considered the “feedstock point of origin” for each feedstock type:
• For planted crops, cover crops, or crop residue (including starches, cellulosic, and non-cellulosic components thereof), the location of the feedstock supplier that supplied the feedstock to the renewable fuel producer or biointermediate producer (
• For oil derived from planted crops, cover crops, or algae, the location where the oil is extracted from the planted crop, cover crop, or algae (
• For biogenic waste oils/fats/greases, separated yard waste, separated food waste, or MSW (including the components thereof), the location of the establishment where the waste is collected (
• For biogas, the location of the landfill or digester that produces the biogas.
• For planted trees, tree residue, slash, pre-commercial thinnings, or other woody biomass, the location where the woody biomass is harvested.
• For all other feedstocks, the location where the feedstock is grown, produced, or generated, as applicable.
Second, we are proposing that domestic renewable fuel producers would need to report the feedstock point of origin (
Finally, we are proposing to add clarifying language for attest engagement auditors and QAP providers regarding verifying feedstock points of origin. For attest engagements, we are proposing to clarify that the existing requirement for auditors to “[v]erify that feedstocks were properly identified” in batch reports also includes verifying that the feedstock point of origin was correctly reported.
We request comment on both the proposed recordkeeping, reporting, attest engagement, and QAP requirements and the definition of “feedstock point of origin,” particularly
While EPA has, in the past, taken actions to allow RIN generation for renewable electricity (commonly referred to as eRINs), in this action we are proposing to remove renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program and the implementing regulations that allow for renewable electricity to generate RINs.
The statutory definition of “renewable fuel” in CAA section 211(o)(1)(J) requires that renewable fuel be produced from renewable biomass and used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel. CAA section 211(o)(1)(B)(ii)(B) further indicates that non-liquid biofuels, such as those produced from biogas, may qualify as renewable fuel. Thus, renewable fuels under the RFS program can be broadly categorized as liquid biofuels, such as ethanol or biodiesel, or non-liquid biofuels, such as renewable CNG/LNG that is produced from qualifying biogas (that is in turn produced from qualifying renewable biomass), so long as these fuels are used as transportation fuel. Non-liquid renewable fuels have played a part in the RFS program since the RFS2 Rule was promulgated in 2010. In that final rule, EPA specified that electricity, as well as natural gas and propane, produced from renewable biomass could be a RIN-generating renewable fuel under the RFS program. However, EPA stipulated that electricity could only be a RIN-generating renewable fuel if it could be demonstrated that specific quantities of electricity “are actually used as a transportation fuel[ ].”
Pursuant to the determination that renewable electricity is, in certain circumstances, a qualifying renewable fuel, EPA also, in the RFS2 Rule, established regulatory provisions governing the generation of RINs representing renewable electricity in anticipation of a future action that would provide a RIN-generating pathway for electricity made from renewable biomass and used as transportation fuel. In doing so, EPA discussed the relevant differences between liquid and non-liquid renewable fuels and established regulatory provisions for renewable electricity that recognized those distinctions.
In 2010, EPA also promulgated a definition of “renewable electricity” to “clarify that electricity must meet the definition of renewable fuel in order to qualify for RINs.”
Even though renewable electricity has been part of the RFS program since 2010, and a pathway has existed since 2014 for renewable electricity produced from biogas, EPA has not, to date, registered any party to generate RINs for renewable electricity. Since 2014, several stakeholders have submitted registration requests to generate RINs for renewable electricity produced from biogas. EPA has reviewed these registration requests and met with a range of stakeholders. However, as early as 2016, EPA recognized that structuring a framework to allow for the generation of RINs for renewable electricity produced from biogas under the RFS program presented unique, unanticipated policy and implementation questions that would need to be resolved prior to registering any party, particularly in light of the competing policy preferences of stakeholders.
EPA is proposing to remove renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel from the RFS program. As discussed in Section IX.A, although EPA in the RFS2 Rule determined that
We are proposing to remove renewable electricity from the RFS program on the ground that, under the best reading of the statute, renewable electricity is not a renewable fuel. Congress defined renewable fuel in CAA section 211(o)(1)(J) as “fuel that is produced from renewable biomass and that is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel.” Congress further defined transportation fuel in CAA section 211(o)(1)(L) as “fuel for use in motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, nonroad vehicles, or nonroad engines.” EPA has consistently interpreted “renewable fuel” to encompass three key components: (1) There must be a fuel; (2) The fuel must be produced from renewable biomass; and (3) The fuel must be used to replace or reduce fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel.
EPA's analysis focuses on the last component of the renewable fuel definition—that the fuel must be used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in transportation fuel. The best reading of this language is that a renewable fuel must physically displace a volume of fossil fuel that is present in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine. The statutory definition uses the phrases “quantity of fossil fuel” and “present in a transportation fuel,” both of which imply that there must be a measurable physical volume of fossil fuel that is present in a transportation fuel and that volume must be “replace[d] or reduce[d]” by the renewable fuel. Because electricity cannot replace or reduce a volume of fossil fuel that is present in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, it does not meet the definition of renewable fuel in the statute. That is, electricity is not fungible with a fossil fuel in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine.
In contrast, biogas that is cleaned up into RNG (and then compressed into CNG/LNG) can replace and reduce fossil natural gas that is present in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine that runs on CNG/LNG, and therefore satisfies this portion of the renewable fuel definition. But because electricity cannot physically displace fossil fuel present in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, it does not. Biogas-generated electricity does not result in a physical reduction in the “quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel,” nor is the biogas that is replacing fossil natural gas itself present in a transportation fuel in “motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, nonroad vehicles, or nonroad engines.” Instead, the biogas is burned at an electric generating unit, and the resulting electricity is transmitted on the grid for use to charge batteries present in motor vehicles. The use of the term “present in transportation fuel” indicates that the requirement intends to increase the renewable fuel contained within fossil-fuel transportation fuel itself, not to substitute electricity for such fuel.
Additionally, we note that “electricity” is not mentioned by name in CAA section 211(o), in contrast to over fifty references to liquid fuels. The RFS statutory language in CAA section 211(o) speaks to “volumes” and “gallons” of renewable fuel. The fact that the CAA explicitly references physical units implies that the RFS program was intended to measure, and thus include, only quantities of liquid or gaseous fuels. Although there is no statutory definition of “fuel” under the RFS program, the widely accepted definition is “a material used to produce heat or power by burning.”
Our proposed determination that electricity is not a renewable fuel is effectuated in several ways. First, we are proposing to remove the definition of “renewable electricity” from the definitions in 40 CFR 80.2. Second, we are proposing to remove the regulations associated with generating RINs for renewable electricity. These actions include removing the renewable electricity pathways in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426, the renewable electricity RIN separation requirements in 40 CFR 80.1429, and all associated registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 80.1450, 80.1451, and 80.1454.
EPA requests comment on its statutory analyses and on its proposed conclusions that: (1) Renewable electricity does not meet the definition of renewable fuel because it does not “replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel,” and (2) Electricity is not a fuel under the RFS program. EPA further requests comment on its proposed decision, based on these analyses and conclusions, to remove from the RFS regulations all provisions related to renewable electricity including, but not limited to the definition of and pathways for renewable electricity and the generation of RINs for renewable electricity.
We are proposing to revise the equivalence values for renewable diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel to account for the non-renewable portion of these fuels, as they are all typically produced using a hydrotreating process. Due to an oversight when initially establishing the equivalence values for these fuels, the existing equivalence values for these fuels do not take into consideration the fact that a portion of the hydrogen in these fuels originates from the hydrogen used in the hydrotreating process, nearly all of which is produced from fossil natural gas. By not accounting for the hydrogen produced from fossil natural gas in these fuels, we are effectively allowing these hydrotreated fuels to generate RINs for non-renewable content. This approach conflicts not only with the statutory direction that fuels must be produced from renewable biomass to be eligible under the RFS program, but also with the approach EPA has taken for other biofuels that contain non-renewable content (
To properly account for the fossil-derived hydrogen found in most renewable diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel, we are proposing to reduce the equivalence values for these fuels. Specifically, we are proposing to reduce the equivalence value for renewable diesel specified in 40 CFR 80.1415(b) to 1.6. We are also proposing to specify equivalence values of 1.4 for renewable naphtha and 1.6 for renewable jet fuel. Equivalence values for these fuels are not currently specified in 40 CFR 80.1415(b), but are instead determined on a facility-by-facility basis using an equation specified in 40 CFR 80.1415(c). Previously approved equivalence values for naphtha range from 1.4 to 1.5 with the majority approved at 1.5, and for renewable jet fuel range from 1.6 to 1.7, with the majority approved at 1.6.
The proposed equivalence values for renewable diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel are based on our technical assessment of the proportion of these fuels that are derived from renewable biomass and would better align the equivalence values of these fuels with the approach used for other biofuels that contain non-renewable content described above.
We recognize that the proportion of these fuels that is produced from renewable biomass will vary slightly depending on a number of factors, such as the feedstock used to produce the renewable diesel, naphtha, or jet fuel. An alternative approach to reducing the equivalence values for these fuels as proposed would be to require each renewable fuel producer to determine the proportion of the renewable diesel, naphtha, or jet fuel that is produced from renewable feedstock on a batch-by-batch basis. This alternative approach would require a significant investment from both EPA and the renewable fuel producer to determine an acceptable methodology for calculating the renewable content of these fuels in the absence of a direct measurement technique and to execute the agreed-upon protocols on an ongoing basis. We do not expect that the number of RINs generated under this alternative approach would vary sufficiently from those under our proposed approach such that the additional burden on the renewable fuel producer would be warranted.
We also acknowledge that the proportion of these fuels that is produced from renewable biomass will vary slightly depending on the definition of “produced from renewable biomass.” In this action we are not proposing a definition of produced from renewable biomass. Nevertheless, we believe it is appropriate to propose revised equivalence values for renewable diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel prior to resolving the definition of produced from renewable biomass. The difference in the proportion of these fuels that can be considered produced from renewable biomass using an energy-based approach and a mass-based approach, the two primary approaches to the definition of produced from renewable biomass considered in the Set 1 Rule, are relatively small.
We would intend to implement these proposed changes by deactivating any pathways with these impacted equivalence values prior to the effective date of the final rule (typically 60 days after publication of the final rule in the
We are requesting comment on alternative approaches to recognizing and accounting for the non-renewable content found in most renewable diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel. We are also aware that some producers of renewable diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel have explored producing these fuels using hydrogen that is produced from qualifying renewable biomass rather than from fossil natural gas. We are not proposing new pathways or equivalence values for parties using renewable hydrogen to produce renewable diesel, naphtha, or jet fuel in this action as significant outstanding issues remain. These issues include developing an approach to evaluating the lifecycle GHG emissions for hydrogen used in renewable diesel naphtha, and jet fuel production and how to account for renewable hydrogen used in a hydrotreating process that is not incorporated into the fuel. However, we are requesting comment on how to recognize the potential for greater renewable content that can be achieved using renewable hydrogen in a future action.
Since EPA finalized the biogas regulatory reform provisions in the Set 1 Rule, we have received a significant number of questions from stakeholders regarding when RINs for RNG must be generated and assigned. In response to these inquiries, we are proposing regulations to specify when RINs must be generated and assigned both for renewable fuel and for RNG. Specifically, we are proposing in 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(18) that RINs for most renewable fuels must be generated at:
• For domestic renewable fuel producers, the point of production or point of sale.
• For RIN-generating foreign producers, the point of production or when the renewable fuel is loaded onto a vessel or other transportation mode for transport to the covered location.
• For RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel, the point of importation into the covered location.
We are also proposing in 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(18) that RINs for RNG and renewable fuels that are gaseous at standard temperature and pressure (STP) (
Furthermore, we are proposing in 40 CFR 80.1426(e) that, except for RNG and renewable fuels that are gaseous at STP, RINs generated at the point of production or the point of importation into the covered location must be assigned to a volume of renewable fuel when the renewable fuel leaves the renewable fuel production or import facility, while RINs generated at the point of sale or when the renewable fuel was loaded onto a vessel or other transportation mode for transport to the covered location must be assigned prior to the transfer of ownership of the renewable fuel. We are also proposing that RINs for RNG and renewable fuels
The CAA and RFS regulations prohibit RIN generation for fuel that does not replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. Pure biodiesel (
We are proposing several changes to the percentage standard equations in 40 CFR 80.1405(c).
Second, we are proposing to change the BBD volume requirement (RFV
Acknowledging that the BBD volume requirement is now being met with a more complex mixture of fuels than we anticipated in the RFS2 Rule, we are now proposing to revise the definition of RFV
Consistent with this proposed clarification, we are also proposing to revise the BBD percentage standard to remove the 1.6 multiplier. By specifying the BBD volume requirement in RIN gallons, the BBD multiplier would no longer be necessary to convert from physical gallons of BBD to gallon-RINs. This would also eliminate the need to track the average equivalence value of BBD to adjust the BBD multiplier in the future, which EPA recently revised from 1.5 to 1.6 in the Set 1 Rule due to increased production volumes of renewable diesel relative to biodiesel.
We are also proposing to remove the terms GS
Finally, we are proposing to revise the definitions of RG
Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 lists generally applicable fuel pathways that have been approved for the RFS program. Fuel producers that produce fuel through a pathway (
In addition to requiring that renewable fuel be produced from renewable biomass and used to reduce or replace the quantity of fossil fuel in transportation fuel,
In 2010 when EPA promulgated the initial set of pathways in Table 1 as part of the RFS2 Rule, the range of commercially available technologies for producing renewable fuels was relatively limited, but there was an expectation that other nascent technologies would be developed over time to the point of commercialization. Given the information available at the time, EPA believed that the lifecycle analyses it had conducted for certain pathways provided sufficient basis to approve other pathways with similar feedstocks, production process technologies, and fuels.
However, over the life of the RFS program, many fuel production processes have been developed that vary from those assumed in the original assessments underlying the pathways listed in Table 1 more than we anticipated in the RFS2 Rule. Indeed, some of the fuel production process technologies that parties are now wishing to register under “any” pathways have little connection to the processes EPA evaluated as the basis for including a given pathway in Table 1. In some cases, the GHG emissions performance of such new processes may be significantly worse than the processes we analyzed for the RFS2 Rule or the notional processes we anticipated might be developed in the future. These new processes may therefore not meet the applicable GHG emissions threshold. For example, we have received petitions for cellulosic biofuel production technologies that would use a large amount of conventional natural gas and grid electricity per unit of fuel produced, whereas our 2010 analysis assumed that this type of process would use very little natural gas or grid electricity, relying instead on cellulosic renewable biomass (
Given the possibility that some pathways fitting the description in Table 1 might not actually meet the corresponding statutory GHG reduction requirement, we believe it is inappropriate to continue allowing “any” production process under certain Table 1 pathways. Therefore, we are proposing changes to Table 1 and the RFS regulations to clarify certain fuel pathways in Table 1 and to replace the “any” terminology with more precise language.
More specifically, to further clarify the scope of currently approved pathways, we are proposing to add more precise language to the description of rows in Table 1 that include the term “any” to describe the production process requirements, which are Rows
We are proposing to edit the production process descriptions in Rows K and L to clarify the production process technologies that qualify under these rows. For Row K, we are proposing to clarify that the qualifying production processes are: (1) A biochemical fermentation process that uses cellulosic biomass for all electricity and thermal process energy; (2) A thermochemical gasification process that uses cellulosic biomass for nearly all thermal and electrical process energy needs; or (3) A dry mill fermentation process that converts corn or grain sorghum kernel fiber to ethanol. For Row L, we are proposing to clarify that the qualifying production process technology is a Fischer-Tropsch process that uses cellulosic biomass for nearly all electrical and thermal process energy. Below, we discuss these clarifications in more detail.
For the RFS2 Rule, EPA's evaluation of the emissions associated with the feedstock to fuel conversion stage of the lifecycle was based on process modeling conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
We are proposing changes to Row K based on the biochemical production processes that we evaluated in the RFS2 Rule. For the RFS2 rule, we evaluated the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with a biochemical cellulosic ethanol production process with four major process steps: (1) Conversion of feedstocks to sugar; (2) Fermentation of sugar to ethanol; (3) Ethanol recovery; and (4) Residue utilization for process energy through a combined heat and power system. A key assumption in the NREL evaluation is that residues from steps 1-3 would be utilized in step 4 to produce heat, steam, and electricity and meet all of the facility's needs for these inputs. The modeling assumed that combusting the residues in a fluidized bed combustor would provide adequate heat, steam, and electricity for steps 1-3, with excess electricity sold to the grid. The residue materials considered in our evaluation were materials left over after the processing of the cellulosic biomass feedstock, including lignin, concentrated syrup, and biogas from wastewater treatment. In particular, the lignin residue was assumed to be the main source of fuel energy to the combined heat and power system.
For the crop residue ethanol via a biochemical process based on analysis assuming corn stover feedstock, we estimated a 129 percent GHG reduction relative to the gasoline baseline (
For these reasons, we are proposing to revise the production process column of Row K to include, “Biochemical fermentation process that converts cellulosic biomass to ethanol; only includes processes that use the lignin and other biogenic feedstock residues from the fermentation and ethanol production processes for all thermal and electrical process energy and are net exporters of electricity to the grid.”
We are also proposing changes to Row K of Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 based on the thermochemical production processes that we evaluated in the RFS2 Rule. The RFS2 Rule evaluated pathways for cellulosic ethanol produced via a thermochemical process. Our evaluation of these pathways relied on process modeling by NREL. The process modeled by NREL includes biomass gasification, syngas refining, mixed alcohol synthesis and distillation. The NREL modeling assumed that tar from the biomass gasification and a slipstream of unrefined syngas would be combusted to provide all required process heat, precluding the need to purchase natural gas or other fossil fuels for almost all the energy needs for the process.
For corn stover ethanol via a thermochemical process, in 2010 we estimated a 92 percent reduction relative to the gasoline baseline. For switchgrass ethanol, the corresponding estimate was a 72 percent GHG reduction. Based on these estimates, we remain confident that a biochemical process using biomass residues for almost all heat and excess power generation will meet the 60 percent GHG reduction threshold for D3 RINs. However, if we were to change the 2010 analysis to assume natural gas is used for process heat and power, the corresponding GHG reduction estimates would be 16 percent for corn stover and 2 percent for switchgrass. Thus, our determination that these pathways satisfy the 60 percent threshold (or even the 20 percent threshold) is dependent on the assumption that biomass residues will be used for process energy and power. For these reasons, we are proposing to revise the production process column of Row K to include, “Thermochemical gasification process that converts cellulosic biomass to ethanol and uses a portion of the feedstock for over 99% of thermal and electrical process energy.”
We are also proposing changes to Row K of Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 based on the CKF to ethanol process evaluated in the Pathways II Rule.
We are proposing changes to Row L of Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 based on the Fischer-Tropsch processes that we evaluated in the RFS2 rule. EPA evaluated the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil produced from corn stover and switchgrass via a Fischer-Tropsch process for the RFS2 Rule. The lifecycle analysis for these pathways relied on process modeling by NREL. The NREL process modeling assumed that the feedstock is dried and gasified, the resulting syngas is cleaned and reformed, wax is sent to a hydrocracker, and the light hydrocarbons and hydrocracker products are sent to a fractionator to separate diesel from other coproducts. The NREL modeling assumed that almost all (99.8 percent) of the steam and power requirements are satisfied internally through biomass and syngas combustion, with the small remainder of energy needs met with grid electricity and conventional diesel.
For diesel fuel produced from corn stover through a Fischer-Tropsch process, in 2010 we estimated a 91 percent reduction relative to the gasoline baseline. For diesel produced from switchgrass through a Fischer-Tropsch process, the corresponding estimate was a 71 percent GHG reduction. Based on these estimates, we remain confident that a Fischer-Tropsch diesel process using residues (
We are proposing changes to Row M to define the qualifying process technologies more precisely to ensure that fuels produced through Row M satisfy the statutory criteria for RIN generation. In the Pathways I Rule, we approved the pathways in Row M for cellulosic biofuels produced from residue, byproduct and cover crop feedstocks through multiple biochemical and thermochemical processes.
We are proposing changes to Row P based on analyses undertaken by EPA for prior rulemakings. Row P includes ethanol, renewable diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, and naphtha produced from the non-cellulosic portions of separated food waste and non-cellulosic components of annual cover crops. EPA evaluated and approved pathways for ethanol, renewable diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, and naphtha produced from the non-cellulosic portions of separated food waste and non-cellulosic components of annual cover crops assuming that the ethanol would be produced through a fermentation process, and the other fuels would be produced through a hydrotreating or transesterification process. Fermentation processes use a significant amount of thermal energy (
We are proposing changes to Rows Q and T based on analyses undertaken by EPA for prior rulemakings. EPA's evaluation of renewable CNG produced from biogas assumed the biogas would be treated to increase biomethane concentration and reduce impurities such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and volatile organic compounds, and the resulting treated biogas would be compressed for vehicle fueling or pipeline injection. Thus, for the renewable CNG pathways, we are proposing to revise the production process column of Rows Q and T to say, “CNG production from treated biogas via compression.”
EPA's evaluation of renewable LNG produced from biogas assumed the same biogas treatment as the renewable CNG pathways, and the resulting biomethane would undergo liquefaction (
Furthermore, the analyses EPA undertook that form the basis for the Rows Q and T pathways assumed the renewable CNG would be transported via pipeline and that the renewable LNG would be used as a transportation fuel within a relatively short time after it was produced. After the LNG is produced there are boil-off emissions of approximately 0.1 to 0.15 percent per day associated with evaporation during transport, storage, and fueling. Thus, renewable LNG that is transported or stored for a long time before use as transportation fuel has higher lifecycle GHG emissions and is outside the bounds of our analysis. We assume that renewable LNG produced in North America would be used relatively soon after production. CNG that is produced outside of North America would involve additional non-pipeline transportation emissions that were not considered in EPA's lifecycle analysis. For these reasons, we are proposing to clarify that the production process requirements for Rows Q and T are limited to processes that occur in North America.
These regulatory clarifications to Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 do not affect renewable fuel producers that have successfully registered for any of the existing fuel pathways listed in Table 1. Prior registration applications were reviewed and accepted based on EPA's engineering judgement and interpretation of the fuel pathways in Table 1, including EPA's consideration of the bounds of the lifecycle analysis that formed the basis for the approved pathways. If finalized, the regulatory clarifications proposed in this action would not change the status of any of these prior registrations.
We believe the proposed Table 1 revisions discussed in this section would benefit renewable fuel project developers by giving them additional clarity on what process technologies qualify under the existing renewable fuel pathways. Although we strive to describe the pathways in Table 1 in a precise manner that aligns with the lifecycle analysis that supports each pathway, we recognize that there will likely still be some cases where it is not clear whether a particular process technology qualifies for a particular fuel pathway in Table 1. Fuel producers seeking to determine if their fuel fits within the bounds of a pathway listed in Table 1 can contact EPA through the pathway screening tool for clarification.
We are proposing to add generally applicable fuel pathways to Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for renewable naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) produced from biogenic waste oils, fats, and greases through a hydrotreating process to qualify for D5 (advanced
In the RFS2 Rule, we approved fuel pathways, in Rows F and H, for biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from biogenic waste oils, fats, and greases through a hydrotreating process to qualify for D4 RINs. These pathway approvals were based on our estimate that biodiesel produced from UCO (also called waste grease or yellow grease in the RFS2 Rule) reduced lifecycle GHG emissions by over 80 percent compared to the petroleum baseline.
In 2018, we approved a facility-specific petition, submitted pursuant to the petition process at 40 CFR 80.1416, for naphtha and LPG produced from biogenic waste oils, fats, and greases at the Renewable Energy Group hydrotreating facility in Geismar, Louisiana, to qualify for D5 RINs.
The RFS regulations currently do not define the terms “renewable fuel producer,” “renewable fuel oil,” “renewable naphtha,” and “renewable jet fuel;” however, all these terms are used within the RFS regulations. To provide regulatory clarity, we are proposing to define each of these terms in this action. We are proposing to define a renewable fuel producer as “any person that owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a facility where renewable fuels are produced.” This proposed definition is consistent with other definitions of regulated parties under the RFS program. We are proposing to define renewable fuel oil as “heating oil that is renewable fuel and that meets paragraph (2) of the definition of heating oil,” renewable naphtha as “naphtha that is renewable fuel,” and renewable jet fuel as “jet fuel that is renewable fuel and meets ASTM D7566.” These proposed definitions are consistent with other definitions of renewable fuels under the RFS program.
We believe these proposed definitions will provide more clarity to both the regulated community and the public. We request comment on the proposed definitions.
Because we are proposing to reduce the RINs that are generated on foreign renewable fuel and renewable fuel made from foreign feedstocks, and given the complex nature of global supply chains, we believe it is necessary to update the definitions of foreign renewable fuel producers and importers. These proposed revisions will also provide clarity to regulated parties regarding which entities qualify as foreign renewable fuel producers or importers.
Under 40 CFR 80.2, a foreign renewable fuel producer is currently defined as “a person from a foreign country or from an area outside the covered location who produces renewable fuel for use in transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel for export to the covered location. Foreign ethanol producers are considered foreign renewable fuel producers.” This definition is ambiguous because renewable fuel produced at a facility in the United States could arguably be considered produced by a “foreign renewable fuel producer” if the corporation that produced the renewable fuel is incorporated in a foreign country. We are proposing that a foreign renewable fuel producer instead be defined as “any person that owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a facility outside the covered location where renewable fuel is produced.” This revised definition is consistent with how foreign biogas producers and foreign RNG producers have been defined under the RFS regulations.
Further, under 40 CFR 80.2 an importer is defined as “any person who imports transportation fuel or renewable fuel into the covered location from an area outside of the covered location.” To provide greater clarity to the regulated community as to which entities can be considered an importer, we are proposing to revise the definition of importer to include “the importer of record or an authorized agent acting on their behalf, as well as the actual owner, the consignee, or the transferee, if the right to withdraw merchandise from a bonded warehouse has been transferred.”
Finally, we are proposing to add a provision in the liability provisions at 40 CFR 80.1461 that specifies that each person meeting the definition of an importer of renewable fuel under the RFS regulations is jointly and severally liable for any violations of the RFS requirements, including the newly proposed import RIN reduction provisions. The proposed change is consistent with the liability framework for other parties participating in the RFS program and the liability framework that applies in EPA's fuel quality program under 40 CFR part 1090. These provisions are also necessary to ensure that importers who import non-qualifying renewable fuel or renewable fuel feedstocks can be held liable.
We request comment on the revised definitions of “foreign renewable fuel producer” and “importer.” We also request comment on the joint and several liability provision applicable to importers of renewable fuel.
In the 2020-2022 RFS Rule, we established provisions for biointermediates to be used to produce qualifying renewable fuels and listed in the regulations specific biointermediates that are allowed under the RFS program.
Under the RFS program, small refineries are eligible to petition for and receive an exemption from their RFS obligations for a given compliance year. The RFS regulations do not, however, exempt these small refineries from having to submit an annual compliance report. We are proposing to clarify that such exempt small refineries must file an annual compliance report.
While an exempt small refinery does not have to retire RINs to comply with an RVO, it still produces gasoline or diesel fuel that is used as transportation fuel in the United States and thus this fuel is included in EIA's projections of nationwide gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. EPA uses these projections as the basis for calculating the annual RFS percentage standards and, as described in the Set 1 Rule, we have recently discovered a discrepancy between the volumes of gasoline and diesel fuel reported by obligated parties in their annual compliance reports and EIA's reported actual volumes of gasoline and diesel fuel consumed.
We are proposing several changes to requirements related to compliance reports. Generally, these changes are intended to reduce burden, support implementation, or to improve the quality of information submitted to EPA under 40 CFR 80.1449, 80.1451, and 80.1452.
Currently, each entity owning RINs must calculate the volume of renewable fuel (in gallons) owned at the end of each quarter and report this on a quarterly basis. The general requirements for RIN distribution specify that the number of assigned RINs owned must be less than or equal to the amount of renewable fuel owned multiplied by 2.5. However, since 2010 there have been no documented compliance issues with entities meeting the distribution requirement for assigned RINs. To reduce reporting burden, we are proposing to remove this quarterly reporting requirement under 40 CFR 80.1451 and to also update the associated requirement under 40 CFR 80.1428(a)(4).
Renewable fuel producers are required to submit an annual “production outlook report” that currently includes a monthly or annual projection in future years. We are proposing to only require annual projections. Reducing this reporting requirement to annual projections will reduce burden while maintaining a minimum level of reporting needed to assess future production. We are also proposing to update or remove other outdated language under 40 CFR 80.1449.
Additionally, producers or importers of biogas used for transportation fuel are currently required to report on a quarterly basis the total energy produced and supplied for use as transportation fuel, as well as where the fuel is sold for use as a transportation fuel. These reporting requirements under 40 CFR 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(P) are similar to other existing reporting requirements under 40 CFR 80.140. We are therefore proposing to remove this separate quarterly reporting requirement to further reduce reporting burden.
Finally, we are taking steps to improve the quality of information when entities generate RINs in EMTS. Currently, each reporting party must enter a “reason code” whenever they are reporting a buy, sell, separate or retire transaction in EMTS as described in 40 CFR 80.1452. This information is then used for implementation, compliance and public data postings on EPA's website. We are proposing to also add a “reason code” to generate transactions for similar purposes and updating other language under 40 CFR 80.1452 to improve consistency. Examples of new reason codes include feedstock point of origin identification, co-processed batches, and remedial actions.
We are proposing to change the frequency that independent third-party auditors are required to renew their registrations. Currently, a third-party auditor's registration expires each year on December 31. However, we have found that there is significant burden on both EPA and auditors to review and approve these registrations every year. We believe that it is not necessary to require auditors to renew their registrations annually and that a two-year registration period would be more appropriate. This length of time would still ensure that we are regularly reviewing auditor registrations, while also reducing burden on EPA and auditors. Thus, we are proposing that a
Under 40 CFR 80.1450(b)(2), renewable fuel production facilities are required to undergo an independent third-party engineering review prior to registration. As part of that engineering review, the independent third-party engineer is required to conduct a site visit. However, the current regulations do not specify when such site visits need to occur. Recently, EPA has received some engineering reviews where the site visit was over a year old. Therefore, we are proposing to specify that engineering review site visits must be conducted within six months prior to submitting a registration request in order to ensure that the site visit is reflective of the current operation of the facility. We request comment on the proposed change to the engineering review site visit requirement.
As part of the biogas regulatory reform provisions in the Set 1 Rule, a batch of biogas was specified as the volume of biogas measured for a calendar month, with the last day of the month as the production date.
We are proposing to add additional measurement protocols to the list of approved methods for measuring the volume of RNG or treated biogas. EPA has already accepted all these methods through alternative measurement protocols. The methods we are proposing to add under 40 CFR 80.155(a) are the following:
• AGA Report No. 3.
• AGA Report No. 9.
• AGA Report No. 11 or API MPMS 14.9.
• ASME MFC-5.1
• ASME MFC-21.2.
• ANSI B109.3.
• ISO 5167-1 and ISO 5167-2, ISO 5167-4, or ISO 5167-5.
• ISO 17089-2.
We are also proposing that flow meters used to measure the volume of RNG or treated biogas must be tested and calibrated under OIML R137-1 and 2. Relatedly, we are proposing that if a given flow meter is calibrated with a fluid other than natural gas, the equivalency to biogas flow or natural gas flow, respectively, must be demonstrated at the time of registration.
In addition, under 40 CFR 80.155(b)(2)(v), we are proposing to add EPA Method TO-15 and ASTM D1945 as additional methods that can be used for hydrocarbon analysis of biogas and RNG samples. Currently, only EPA Method 18 is specified for hydrocarbon analysis.
We request comment on the adding the proposed methods and whether there are any additional methods we should add to the list of approved methods.
We are not proposing any changes to the sulfur standards for biodiesel or renewable diesel in this action. However, we are again reiterating that biodiesel and renewable diesel producers must comply with all of EPA's regulatory requirements for diesel producers in 40 CFR part 1090 for the biodiesel and renewable diesel they produce (referred to as “nonpetroleum diesel fuel” in 40 CFR part 1090), including demonstrating homogeneity for each batch of biodiesel and renewable diesel and testing each batch for sulfur content to ensure the fuel meets the 15 ppm standard.
Further, the definition of biodiesel under 40 CFR 80.2 requires that the fuel “meet ASTM D6571,” which means that each batch of biodiesel must be tested for and meet all parameters specified in ASTM D6751. The ASTM D6751 specification was imposed to ensure that biodiesel for which RINs are generated is of a sufficient quality to be used as transportation fuel. To ensure that all biodiesel for which RINs are generated is fit to be used as transportation fuel, each batch must be tested for and meet ASTM D6751.
To further make clear that all the above requirements apply to biodiesel and renewable diesel, we are proposing clarifying language at 40 CFR 1090.300(a), 1090.305(a), 1090.1310(b)(1), and 1090.1337(e). We request comment on these proposed clarifications in 40 CFR part 1090 relating to biodiesel and renewable diesel.
We are proposing numerous technical amendments to the RFS regulations. These amendments are being made to correct minor inaccuracies and clarify the current regulations. These changes are described in Table X.I-1.
We solicit comments on this proposed action. Specifically, we are soliciting comment on the following:
• The proposed cellulosic biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel volume requirements for 2026 and 2027 (A-1).
• Alternative volume requirements for each of the statutory categories of renewable fuel for 2026 and 2027, including any data or analysis that would support alternative volumes for these years (A-2).
• The assessments and methodologies used to project volumes of cellulosic biofuel (A-3).
• The appropriate volume of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel for 2026 and 2027 (A-4).
• The potential production volume and impacts of renewable jet fuel on the statutory factors (A-5).
• Our proposed approach of accounting for the projected shortfall in the supply of conventional renewable fuel relative to the 15-billion-gallon implied volume when establishing the volume requirements for advanced biofuel and BBD (A-6).
• The advantages and disadvantages of establishing BBD and advanced biofuel volume requirements at levels at or closer to the projected supplies of these fuels and the implications of doing so on the total renewable fuel volume if such an approach were adopted (A-7).
• Our analysis of the statutory factors in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), including the approaches to estimating jobs and rural economic development impacts associated with renewable fuels and the types of approaches that would be appropriate to apply in analyzing net jobs and rural development impacts (A-8).
• The appropriateness of the proposed import RIN reduction factor (
• The proposed import RIN generation requirement, and whether there are alternative RIN generation approaches that we should consider (B-2).
• The proposed import RIN reduction recordkeeping, reporting, attest engagement, and QAP requirements (B-3).
• The proposed definition of “feedstock point of origin,” particularly on the proposed origin locations for each feedstock type and whether there are any other feedstock types that should have specified origin locations (B-4).
• The statutory analyses and proposed conclusions that: (1) Renewable electricity does not meet the definition of renewable fuel because it does not “replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel,” and (2) Electricity is not a fuel under the RFS program (C-1).
• The proposed removal from the RFS regulations all provisions related to renewable electricity, including but not limited to the definition of and pathways for renewable electricity and
• The other proposed amendments to the RFS program, including: the equivalence values for renewable diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel; the changes to the percentage standards equations; and the changes and additions to the pathways in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 (D-1).
• Where applicable, any legitimate reliance interests impacted by EPA's proposed changes in policy. (E-1)
• A general pathway for the production of renewable jet fuel from corn ethanol, including the consideration of technologies that could reduce the GHG emissions for this pathway such as the use of carbon capture and storage and renewable natural gas for process energy (E-2).
• The definition of “produced from renewable biomass” (E-3).
• Additional program amendments to ensure the validity of imported renewable fuels and feedstocks (E-4).
• Program enhancements to increase the use of qualifying woody-biomass to produce renewable transportation fuel (E-5).
• An option to apply the import RIN reduction provisions to imported renewable fuel and renewable fuel produced domestically from foreign feedstock from only a subset of countries to reflect the reduced economic, energy security, and environmental benefits of imported renewable fuel and feedstocks from those countries (E-6).
• Any other modifications to the RFS program designed to unleash the production of American energy (E-7).
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is a “significant regulatory action,” as defined under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, EPA, submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is presented in DRIA Chapter 10.6, available in the docket for this action.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action in DRIA Chapter 10.6, available in the docket for this action.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 7804.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The proposed volume standards and associated percentage standards for 2026 and 2027 do not add to the burdens already estimated under existing, approved ICRs for the RFS program. This proposed rule proposes recordkeeping and reporting for domestic renewable fuel producers to implement the proposed RIN reduction for import-based renewable fuel. We anticipate the increase in burden related to identifying feedstock as foreign or domestic will be very small because the parties already are required to keep underlying records and provide reports for the RFS program, generally. General recordkeeping and reporting for the RFS program is contained in the Renewable Fuel Standard program ICR, OMB Control Number 2060-0725 (expires November 30, 2025).
Certain information submitted to EPA may be claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and such information will be handled in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR parts 2 and 80.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA.
With respect to the amendments to the RFS regulations, this action makes minor corrections and modifications to those regulations. As such, we do not anticipate that there will be any significant adverse economic impact on directly regulated small entities as a result of these revisions.
The small entities directly regulated by the annual percentage standards associated with the RFS volumes are small refiners that produce gasoline or diesel fuel, which are defined at 13 CFR 121.201. EPA believes that there are currently 6 refiners (owning 7 refineries) producing gasoline and/or diesel that meet the definition of small entity by having 1,500 employees or fewer. To evaluate the impacts of the proposed 2026 and 2027 volume requirements on small entities, we have conducted a screening analysis to assess whether we should make a finding that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Furthermore, to the degree that small entities may be impacted by this action, these impacts are mitigated by the existing compliance flexibilities in the RFS program that are available to small entities. These flexibilities include being able to comply through RIN trading rather than renewable fuel blending, 20 percent RIN rollover allowance (up to 20 percent of an obligated party's RVO can be met using previous-year RINs), and deficit carry-forward (the ability to carry over a deficit from a given year into the following year, provided that the deficit is satisfied together with the next year's RVO). Additionally, as required by CAA section 211(o)(9)(B), the RFS regulations include a hardship relief provision that allows for a small refinery to petition for an extension of its small refinery exemption at any time based on a showing that the refinery is experiencing a “disproportionate economic hardship.”
In sum, this rule will not change the compliance flexibilities currently offered to small entities under the RFS program and available information shows that the impact on small entities from implementation of this rule will not be significant.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments. This action contains a federal mandate under UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) for the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, the costs associated with this rule are discussed in Section IV and DRIA Chapter 10.
This action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications. 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.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action will be implemented at the Federal level and affects transportation fuel refiners, blenders, marketers, distributors, importers, exporters, and renewable fuel producers and importers. Tribal governments will be affected only to the extent they produce, purchase, or use regulated fuels. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13045 directs federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risks of the pollutants impacted by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. An assessment of the environmental impacts from this rule is include in DRIA Chapter 4.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action proposes to establish the required renewable fuel content of the transportation fuel supply for 2026 and 2027 pursuant to the CAA. The RFS program and this rule are designed to achieve positive effects on the nation's transportation fuel supply by increasing energy independence and security. These positive impacts are described in Section IV and DRIA Chapter 6.
This action involves technical standards. Except for the standards discussed in this section, the standards included in the regulatory text as incorporated by reference were all previously approved for incorporation by reference (IBR) and no change is included in this action.
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference the use of certain standards and test methods from the American Gas Association (AGA), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Petroleum Institute (API), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), ASTM International (ASTM), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), and EPA. The standards and test methods may be obtained through the AGA website (
AGA, ASME, ANSI, API, ASTM, ISO, and OIML regularly publish updated versions of their standards and test methods, with the potential that there will be a published version of one or more of the documents listed above before we adopt the final rule that is more recent than the documents we identify in this proposed rule. For any such updated versions, we will consider including a reference to the latest document when we finalize the revisions covered by this proposed rule.
Amendatory instructions are the standard terms that the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) uses to give specific instructions to agencies on how to change the CFR. OFR's historical guidance was to include amendatory instructions accompanying each individual change that was being made (
Statutory authority for this action comes from sections 114, 203-05, 208, 211, 301, and 307 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7522-24, 7542, 7545, 7601, and 7607.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 80 and 1090 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(5) * * *
(x) Activated sludge.
(xi) Converted oils.
(1) * * *
(ii) Meets the definition of either biodiesel or renewable diesel.
(1) (i) Is a transportation fuel, transportation fuel additive, heating oil, or jet fuel.
(ii) Meets the definition of either biodiesel or renewable diesel.
(iii) Is registered as a motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive under 40 CFR part 79, if the fuel or fuel additive is intended for use in a motor vehicle.
(2) Co-processed cellulosic diesel includes all the following:
(i) Renewable fuel oil and renewable jet fuel produced from cellulosic feedstocks.
(ii) Cellulosic biofuel produced from cellulosic feedstocks co-processed with petroleum.
(1) * * *
(ii) A non-distillate fuel other than residual fuel with comparable physical and chemical properties (
(1) For planted crops, cover crops, or crop residue (including starches, cellulosic, and non-cellulosic components thereof), the location of the feedstock supplier that supplied the feedstock to the renewable fuel producer or biointermediate producer (
(2) For oil derived from planted crops, cover crops, or algae, the location where the oil is extracted from the planted crop, cover crop, or algae (
(3) For biogenic waste oils/fats/greases, separated yard waste, separated food waste, or MSW (including the components thereof), the location of the establishment where the waste is collected (
(4) For biogas, the location of the landfill or digester that produces the biogas.
(5) For planted trees, tree residue, slash, pre-commercial thinnings, or other woody biomass, the location where the woody biomass is harvested.
(6) For all other feedstocks, the location where the feedstock is produced, generated, extracted, collected, or harvested, as applicable.
(1)(i) Any No. 1, No. 2, or non-petroleum diesel blend that is sold for use in furnaces, boilers, and similar applications and which is commonly or commercially known or sold as heating oil, fuel oil, and similar trade names, and that is not jet fuel, kerosene, or MVNRLM diesel fuel.
(ii) Any fuel oil that is used to heat or cool interior spaces of homes or buildings to control ambient climate for human comfort. The fuel oil must be liquid at STP and contain no more than 2.5% mass solids.
(2) Pure biodiesel (
(1) Any diesel fuel that is sold for use in stationary engines that are required to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1090.300, when such provisions are applicable to nonroad engines, is considered MVNRLM diesel fuel.
(2) [Reserved]
(1) A fuel or fuel additive that meets the Grade No. 1-D or No. 2-D specification in ASTM D975 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(2) A fuel or fuel additive that is registered under 40 CFR part 79.
Renewable liquefied natural gas or renewable LNG means biogas, treated biogas, or RNG that is liquefied (
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at U.S. EPA and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact U.S. EPA at: U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566-1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit:
(a) American Gas Association (AGA), 400 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 450, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 824-7000;
(1) AGA Report No. 3 Part 1, Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters Part 1: General Equations and Uncertainty Guidelines, 4th Edition, including Errata July 2013, Reaffirmed, July 2022 (“AGA Report No. 3 Part 1”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(2) AGA Report No. 3 Part 2, Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters Part 2: Specification and Installation Requirements, 5th Edition, March 2016 (“AGA Report No. 3 Part 2”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(3) AGA Report No. 3 Part 3, Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters Part 3: Natural Gas Applications, 4th Edition, Reaffirmed, June 2021 (“AGA Report No. 3 Part 3”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(4) AGA Report No. 3 Part 1, Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters Part 4—Background, Development, Implementation Procedure, and Example Calculations, 4th Edition, October 2019 (“AGA Report No. 3 Part 4”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(5) AGA Report No. 9, Measurement of Gas by Multipath Ultrasonic Meters, 2nd Edition, April 2007 (“AGA Report No. 9); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(6) AGA Report No. 11, Measurement of Natural Gas by Coriolis Meter, 2nd Edition, February 2013 (“AGA Report No. 11); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(b) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 293-8020;
(1) ANSI B109.3-2019 (R2024), Rotary-Type Gas Displacement Meters, February 5, 2019, Reaffirmed April 16, 2024 (“ANSI B109.3”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(2) [Reserved]
(c) American Petroleum Institute (API), 200 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001-5571; (202) 682-8000;
(1) API MPMS 14.1-2016, Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 14—Natural Gas Fluids Measurement Section 1—Collecting and Handling of Natural Gas Samples for Custody Transfer, 7th Edition, May 2016 (“API MPMS 14.1”); IBR approved for § 80.155(b).
(2) API MPMS 14.3.1-2012, Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 14.3.1—Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters Part 1: General Equations and Uncertainty Guidelines, 4th Edition, including Errata July 2013, Reaffirmed, July 2022 (“API MPMS 14.3.1”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(3) API MPMS 14.3.2-2016, Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 14.3.2—Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters Part 2: Specification and Installation Requirements, 5th Edition, March 2016 (“API MPMS 14.3.2”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(4) API MPMS 14.3.3-2013, Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 14.3.3—Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters Part 3: Natural Gas Applications, 4th Edition, Reaffirmed, June 2021 (“API MPMS 14.3.3”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(5) API MPMS 14.3.4-2019, Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 14.3.4—Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids—Concentric, Square-edged Orifice Meters Part 4—Background, Development, Implementation Procedure, and Example Calculations, 4th Edition, October 2019 (“API MPMS 14.3.4”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(6) API MPMS 14.9-2013, Measurement of Natural Gas by Coriolis Meter (“API MPMS 14.9”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(7) API MPMS 14.12-2017, Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 14—Natural Gas Fluid Measurement Section 12—Measurement of Gas by Vortex Meters, 1st Edition, March 2017 (“API MPMS 14.12”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
API MPMS 14.3.1, 14.3.2, 14.3.3, and 14.3.4, are co-published as AGA Report 3, Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
(d) American Public Health Association (APHA), 1015 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005; (202) 777-2742;
(1) SM 2540, Solids, revised June 10, 2020; IBR approved for § 80.155(c).
(2) [Reserved]
(e) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; (800) 843-2763;
(1) ASME MFC-5.1-2011 (R2024), Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters, June 17, 2011, Reaffirmed 2024 (“ASME MFC-5.1”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(2) ASME MFC‐21.2-2010 (R2018), Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of Thermal Dispersion Mass Flowmeters, January 10, 2011, Reaffirmed 2018 (“ASME MFC-21.2”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(f) ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; (877) 909-2786;
(1) ASTM D86-23ae2, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products and Liquid Fuels at Atmospheric Pressure, approved December 1, 2023 (“ASTM D86”); IBR approved for § 80.2.
(2) ASTM D975-24a, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel, approved August 1, 2024 (“ASTM D975”); IBR approved for § 80.2.
(3) ASTM D1250-19e1, Standard Guide for the Use of the Joint API and ASTM Adjunct for Temperature and Pressure Volume Correction Factors for Generalized Crude Oils, Refined Products, and Lubricating Oils: API MPMS Chapter 11.1, approved May 1, 2019 (“ASTM D1250”); IBR approved for § 80.1426(f).
(4) ASTM D1945-14 (Reapproved 2019), Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, approved December 1, 2019 (“ASTM D1945”); IBR approved for § 80.155(b).
(5) ASTM D3588-98 (Reapproved 2024)e1, Standard Practice for Calculating Heat Value, Compressibility Factor, and Relative Density of Gaseous Fuels, reapproved May 1, 2024 (“ASTM D3588”); IBR approved for § 80.155(b) and (f).
(6) ASTM D4057-22, Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May 1, 2022 (“ASTM D4057”); IBR approved for § 80.8(a).
(7) ASTM D4177-22e1, Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved July 1, 2022 (“ASTM D4177”); IBR approved for § 80.8(b).
(8) ASTM D4442-20, Standard Test Methods for Direct Moisture Content Measurement of Wood and Wood-Based Materials, approved March 1, 2020 (“ASTM D4442”); IBR approved for § 80.1426(f).
(9) ASTM D4444-13 (Reapproved 2018), Standard Test Method for Laboratory Standardization and Calibration of Hand-Held Moisture Meters, reapproved July 1, 2018 (“ASTM D4444”); IBR approved for § 80.1426(f).
(10) ASTM D4888-20, Standard Test Method for Water Vapor in Natural Gas Using Length-of-Stain Detector Tubes, approved December 15, 2020 (“ASTM D4888”); IBR approved for § 80.155(b).
(11) ASTM D5504-20, Standard Test Method for Determination of Sulfur Compounds in Natural Gas and Gaseous Fuels by Gas Chromatography and Chemiluminescence, approved November 1, 2020 (“ASTM D5504”); IBR approved for § 80.155(b).
(12) ASTM D5842-23, Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement, approved October 1, 2023 (“ASTM D5842”); IBR approved for § 80.8(c).
(13) ASTM D5854-19a, Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May 1, 2019 (“ASTM D5854”); IBR approved for § 80.8(d).
(14) ASTM D6751-24, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blendstock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, approved March 1, 2024 (“ASTM D6751”); IBR approved for § 80.2.
(15) ASTM D6866-24a, Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis, approved December 1, 2024 (“ASTM D6866”); IBR approved for §§ 80.155(b); 80.1426(f); 80.1430(e).
(16) ASTM D7164-21, Standard Practice for On-line/At-line Heating Value Determination of Gaseous Fuels by Gas Chromatography, approved April 1, 2021 (“ASTM D7164”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(17) ASTM D8230-19, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Volatile Silicon-Containing Compounds in a Gaseous Fuel Sample Using Gas Chromatography with Spectroscopic Detection, approved June 1, 2019 (“ASTM D8230”); IBR approved for § 80.155(b).
(18) ASTM E711-23e1, Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Refuse-Derived Fuel by the Bomb Calorimeter, approved April 1, 2023 (“ASTM E711”); IBR approved for § 80.1426(f).
(19) ASTM E870-24, Standard Test Methods for Analysis of Wood Fuels, approved October 1, 2024 (“ASTM E870”); IBR approved for § 80.1426(f).
(g) European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium; + 32 2 550 08 11;
(1) EN 17526:2021(E), Gas meter—Thermal-mass flow-meter based gas meter, approved July 11, 2021 (“EN 17526”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(2) [Reserved]
(h) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland; +41 22 749 01 11;
(1) ISO 5167-1:2022, Measurement of fluid flow by means of pressure differential devices inserted in circular cross-section conduits running full, Part 1: General principles and requirements, 3rd Edition, June 2022 (“ISO 5167-1”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(2) ISO 5167-2:2022, Measurement of fluid flow by means of pressure differential devices inserted in circular cross-section conduits running full, Part 2: Orifice plates, 2nd Edition, June 2022 (“ISO 5167-2”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(3) ISO 5167-4:2022, Measurement of fluid flow by means of pressure differential devices inserted in circular cross-section conduits running full, Part 4: Venturi tubes, 2nd Edition, June 2022 (“ISO 5167-4”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(4) ISO 5167-5:2022, Measurement of fluid flow by means of pressure differential devices inserted in circular cross-section conduits running full, Part 5: Cone meters, 2nd Edition, October 2022 (“ISO 5167-5”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(5) ISO 17089-2:2012, Measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits—Ultrasonic meters for gas, Part 2: Meters for industrial applications, 1st Edition, October 2012 (“ISO 17089-2”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(i) International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), 11 Rue Turgot, F-75009, Paris, France; +33 1 4878 1282;
(1) OIML R 137-1 and 2, Gas meters, Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements and Part 2: Metrological controls and performance tests, Edition 2012, Including Amendment 2014 (“OIML R 137-1 and 2”); IBR approved for § 80.155(a).
(2) [Reserved]
(i) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; (202) 272-0167;
(1) EPA/625/R-96/010b, Compendium Method TO-15, Determination Of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Air Collected In Specially-Prepared Canisters And
(2) [Reserved]
(j) * * *
(1) Except for biogas produced from a mixed digester, the batch volume of biogas is the volume of biogas measured under paragraph (f) of this section for a single batch pathway at a single facility for up to a calendar month, in Btu HHV.
(3) The biogas producer must assign a number (the “batch number”) to each batch of biogas consisting of their EPA-issued company registration number, the EPA-issued facility registration number, the last two digits of the compliance year in which the batch was produced, and a unique number for the batch during the compliance year (
(4) The production date for a batch of biogas is the last day of the time period that the batch represents. For example, the production date for a batch of biogas for the month of January would be January 31, while the production date for a batch of biogas for February 1-14 would be February 14.
(j) * * *
(3) The RNG producer, RNG importer, or biogas closed distribution system RIN generator must assign a number (the “batch number”) to each batch of RNG or biogas-derived renewable fuel consisting of their EPA-issued company registration number, the EPA-issued facility registration number, the last two digits of the compliance year in which the batch was produced, and a unique number for the batch during the compliance year (
(d) * * *
(4) A party must only separate a number of RINs equal to or less than the total volume of RNG (where the Btu LHV are converted to gallon-RINs using the conversion specified in § 80.1415(b)(1)) that the party demonstrates is used as renewable CNG/LNG under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(e) * * *
(2) A party must retire all assigned RINs for a volume of RNG if the RINs are not separated under paragraph (d) of this section by March 31 of the subsequent calendar year after the RNG RIN was generated.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) A description of how biogas will be measured, including the specific standards under which the meters are operated, the fluid with which the meters were calibrated, and the equivalency to biogas flow for meters calibrated with a fluid other than biogas, as applicable.
(10) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) A description of how RNG will be measured, including the specific standards under which the meters are operated, the fluid with which the meters were calibrated, and the equivalency to RNG flow for meters calibrated with a fluid other than natural gas, as applicable.
(b) * * *
(2) Production date.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) Flow meters tested and calibrated under OIML R 137-1 and 2 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12) and compliant with one of the following:
(i) AGA Report No. 3 Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 or API MPMS 14.3.1, API MPMS 14.3.2, API MPMS 14.3.3, and API MPMS 14.3.4 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(ii) API MPMS 14.12 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(iii) EN 17526 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12) compatible with gas type H.
(iv) AGA Report No. 9 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(v) AGA Report No. 11 or API MPMS 14.9 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(vi) ASME MFC-5.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(vii) ASME MFC‐21.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(viii) ANSI B109.3 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(ix) ISO 5167-1 and ISO 5167-2, ISO 5167-4, or ISO 5167-5 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(x) ISO 17089-2 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Hydrocarbon analysis using EPA Method 18 (see Appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60), EPA Method TO-15, or ASTM D1945 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(c) EPA will calculate the annual renewable fuel percentage standards using the following equations:
(d) The price for cellulosic biofuel waiver credits will be calculated in accordance with § 80.1456(d) and published on EPA's website.
(f) * * *
(5) Gasoline or diesel fuel exported for use outside the covered location.
(a)(1) Each gallon (or gallon-equivalent) of a renewable fuel must be assigned an equivalence value by the producer or importer pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, as applicable.
(2) The equivalence value is a number that is used to determine how many gallon-RINs can be generated for a gallon of renewable fuel according to § 80.1426.
(b)(1) Equivalence values for certain renewable fuels are assigned as follows:
(2) For all other renewable fuels, a producer or importer must submit an application to EPA for an equivalence value following the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. A producer or importer may also submit an application for an alternative equivalence value pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section if the renewable fuel is listed in this paragraph (b), but the producer or importer has reason to believe that a different equivalence value than that listed in this paragraph (b) is warranted.
(c) * * *
(1) The equivalence value for renewable fuels described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be calculated using the following formula:
(a) * * *
(3) K has the value of 3 when the RIN is assigned to a volume of RNG pursuant to §§ 80.125(c) and 80.1426(e).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(5) Starting January 1, 2026, the following parties must reduce the number of RINs generated, as calculated under paragraphs (f) of this section, for the specified renewable fuel by 50 percent:
(i) RIN-generating foreign producers, for all renewable fuel produced.
(ii) RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel, for all imported renewable fuel.
(iii) Domestic renewable fuel producers, for all renewable fuel produced from foreign feedstocks or foreign biointermediates.
(b) * * *
(2) If EPA approves a petition of Alaska or a United States territory to opt-in to the renewable fuel program under the provisions in § 80.1443, then the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall also apply to renewable fuel produced or imported for use as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in that state or territory beginning in the next calendar year
(c) * * *
(7) For renewable fuel oil, renewable fuel producers and importers must not generate RINs unless they have received affidavits from the final end user or users of the fuel oil as specified in § 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(T)(
(e)
(A) If RINs were generated for the renewable fuel at the point of production or the point of importation into the covered location, RINs must be assigned when such volumes leave the renewable fuel production or import facility.
(B) If RINs were generated for the renewable fuel at the point of sale or when the renewable fuel was loaded onto a vessel or other transportation mode for transport to the covered location, RINs must be assigned prior to the transfer of ownership of the renewable fuel.
(ii) For RNG and renewable fuels that are gaseous at STP, RINs must be assigned to a volume of RNG or renewable fuel, as applicable, at the same time the RIN is generated.
(2) A RIN is assigned to a volume of renewable fuel when ownership of the RIN is transferred along with the transfer of ownership of the volume of renewable fuel, pursuant to § 80.1428(a).
(3) All assigned RINs must have a K code value of 1 for RINs assigned to renewable fuel or 3 for RINs assigned to RNG.
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) For purposes of identifying the appropriate approved pathway, the fuel must be produced, distributed, and used in a manner consistent with the pathway EPA evaluated when it determined that the pathway satisfies the applicable GHG reduction requirement
(8)
(iii) For other renewable fuels and biointermediates, an appropriate formula commonly accepted by the industry must be used to standardize the actual volume to 60 °F. Formulas used must be reported to EPA and may be determined to be inappropriate
(10) RIN generators may only generate RINs for renewable CNG/LNG produced from biogas that is distributed via a closed, private, non-commercial system if all the following requirements are met:
(i) The renewable CNG/LNG was produced from renewable biomass under an approved pathway.
(ii) The RIN generator has entered into a written contract for the sale or use of a specific quantity of renewable CNG/LNG for use as transportation fuel, or has obtained affidavits from all parties selling or using the renewable CNG/LNG as transportation fuel.
(iii) The renewable CNG/LNG was used as transportation fuel and for no other purpose.
(iv) The biogas was introduced into the closed, private, non-commercial system no later and the renewable CNG/LNG produced from the biogas was used as transportation fuel no later than December 31, 2024.
(v) RINs may only be generated on biomethane content of the renewable CNG/LNG used as transportation fuel.
(11) RINs for renewable CNG/LNG produced from RNG that is introduced into a commercial distribution system may only be generated if all the following requirements are met:
(i) The renewable CNG/LNG was produced from renewable biomass and qualifies for a D code in an approved pathway.
(ii) The RIN generator has entered into a written contract for the sale or use of a specific quantity of RNG, taken from a commercial distribution system (
(iii) The renewable CNG/LNG produced from the RNG was sold for use as transportation fuel and for no other purpose.
(iv) The RNG was injected into and withdrawn from the same commercial distribution system.
(v) The RNG was withdrawn from the commercial distribution system in a manner and at a time consistent with the transport of the RNG between the injection and withdrawal points.
(vi) The volume of RNG injected into the commercial distribution system and the volume of RNG withdrawn are measured by continuous metering.
(vii) The volume of renewable CNG/LNG sold for use as transportation fuel corresponds to the volume of RNG that was injected into and withdrawn from the commercial distribution system.
(viii) No other party relied upon the volume of biogas, RNG, or renewable CNG/LNG for the generation of RINs.
(ix) The RNG was introduced into the commercial distribution system no later than December 31, 2024, and the renewable CNG/LNG was used as transportation fuel no later than December 31, 2024.
(x) RINs may only be generated on biomethane content of the biogas, treated biogas, RNG, or renewable CNG/LNG.
(xi) (A) On or after January 1, 2025, RINs may only be generated for RNG injected into a natural gas commercial pipeline system for use as transportation fuel as specified in subpart E of this part.
(B) RINs may be generated for RNG as specified in subpart E of this part prior to January 1, 2025, if all applicable requirements under this part are met.
(17)
(i) The fuel is produced from renewable biomass and qualifies to generate RINs under an approved pathway.
(ii) The fuel producer or importer maintains records demonstrating that the fuel was produced for use as a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel by any of the following:
(A) Blending the renewable fuel into gasoline or distillate fuel to produce a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel that meets all applicable standards under this part and 40 CFR part 1090.
(B) Entering into a written contract for the sale of the renewable fuel, which specifies the purchasing party must blend the fuel into gasoline or distillate fuel to produce a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel that meets all applicable standards under this part and 40 CFR part 1090.
(C) Entering into a written contract for the sale of the renewable fuel, which specifies that the fuel must be used in its neat form as a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel that meets all applicable standards.
(ii) The fuel was sold for use in or as a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel, and for no other purpose.
(18)
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(18)(ii), RINs must be generated at:
(A) For domestic renewable fuel producers, the point of production or point of sale.
(B) For RIN-generating foreign producers, the point of production or when the renewable fuel is loaded onto a vessel or other transportation mode for transport to the covered location.
(C) For RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel, the point of importation into the covered location.
(ii)(A) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(18)(ii)(B), for RNG and renewable fuels that are gaseous at STP, RINs must be generated no later than 5 business days after the RIN generator has met all applicable requirements for the generation of RINs under §§ 80.125(b), 80.130(b), and this paragraph (f), as applicable.
(B) For foreign produced RIN-less RNG, RINs must be generated when title is transferred from the foreign producer to the RIN-generating importer.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) Assigned gallon-RINs with a K code of 1 or 3 can be transferred to another person based on the following:
(i) No more than 2.5 assigned gallon-RINs with a K code of 1 can be transferred to another person with every gallon of renewable fuel transferred to that same person.
(ii) For RNG, the transferor of assigned RINs with a K code of 3 must transfer RINs under § 80.125(c).
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(5) (i) Any party that produces, imports, owns, sells, or uses a volume of biogas for which RINs have been generated in accordance with § 80.1426(f) must separate any RINs that have been assigned to that volume of biogas if all the following conditions are met:
(A) The party designates the biogas as transportation fuel.
(B) The biogas is used as transportation fuel.
(c) The party responsible for separating a RIN from a volume of renewable fuel or RNG must change the K code in the RIN from a value of 1 or 3, as applicable, to a value of 2 prior to transferring the RIN to any other party.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) A refinery that is granted a small refinery exemption under this section must still submit reports under § 80.1451(a) for the compliance year for which it was granted an exemption, including annual compliance reports. Such exempt small refineries must submit annual compliance reports containing all the information specified in § 80.1451(a)(1) by the applicable compliance deadline specified in § 80.1451(f)(1)(i).
(v) A refinery that is granted a small refinery exemption under this section must still comply with any deficit RVOs carried forward from the previous year.
(h) * * *
(6) A refiner that is granted a small refiner exemption under this section must still submit reports under § 80.1451(a) for the compliance year for which it was granted an exemption, including annual compliance reports. Such exempt small refiners must submit annual compliance reports containing all the information specified in § 80.1451(a)(1) by the applicable compliance deadline specified in § 80.1451(f)(1)(i).
(7) A refiner that is granted a small refiner exemption under this section must still comply with any deficit RVOs carried forward from the previous year.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) By June 1 of each year, a registered renewable fuel producer or importer must submit and an unregistered renewable fuel producer may submit all of the following information for each of its facilities, as applicable, to EPA:
(1) If currently registered, any planned changes to the type, or types, of renewable fuel expected to be produced or imported at each facility owned by the renewable fuel producer or importer.
(4) * * *
(i) Nameplate production capacity and, if applicable, permitted production capacity.
(iii) If currently registered, any planned changes to feedstocks, biointermediates, and production processes to be used at each production facility.
(b) The information listed in paragraph (a) of this section must include the reporting party's best annual projection estimates for the five following calendar years.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * * Registration information must be submitted and accepted by EPA at least 60 days prior to RIN ownership.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(D) For all facilities producing renewable fuel from biogas, submit all relevant information in § 80.1426(f)(10) or (11), including:
(
(xi) For a producer of renewable fuel oil:
(A) An affidavit from the producer of the renewable fuel oil stating that the renewable fuel oil for which RINs have been generated will be sold for the purposes of heating or cooling interior spaces of homes or buildings to control ambient climate for human comfort, and no other purpose.
(B) Affidavits from the final end user or users of the renewable fuel oil stating that the renewable fuel oil is being used or will be used for purposes of heating or cooling interior spaces of homes or buildings to control ambient climate for human comfort, and no other purpose, and acknowledging that any other use of the renewable fuel oil would violate EPA regulations and subject the user to civil and/or criminal penalties under the Clean Air Act.
(xii) For a producer or importer of any renewable fuel other than ethanol, biodiesel, renewable gasoline, renewable jet fuel, renewable diesel that meets paragraph (1) of the definition of renewable diesel, biogas-derived renewable fuel, or RNG, all the following:
(A) A description of the renewable fuel and how it will be blended to into gasoline or diesel fuel to produce a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel that meets all applicable standards.
(2) An independent third-party engineering review and written report and verification of the information provided pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section and § 80.135, as applicable.
(g) * * *
(10)
(i) The independent third-party auditor resubmits all information, updated as necessary, described in § 80.1450(g)(1) through (g)(7) no later than October 31 before the calendar year that their registration expires.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(L) Each process, feedstock, feedstock point of origin, and biointermediate, as applicable, used and proportion of renewable volume attributable to each process, feedstock, feedstock point of origin, and biointermediate, as applicable.
(T) Producers or importers of any renewable fuel other than ethanol, biodiesel, renewable gasoline, renewable jet fuel, renewable diesel that meets the paragraph (1) of the definition of renewable diesel, biogas-derived renewable fuel, or RNG, must report, on a quarterly basis, all the following for each volume of fuel:
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) Each party required to submit information under this section must establish an account with the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) at least 60 days prior to engaging in any RIN transactions.
(b) Each time a RIN generator assigns RINs to a batch of renewable fuel or RNG pursuant to §§ 80.125(c) and 80.1426(e), as applicable, all the following information must be submitted to EPA via the submitting party's EMTS account within five (5) business days of the date of RIN assignment. EPA in its sole discretion may allow a RIN generator to submit information under this paragraph (b) outside the 5-business-day deadline.
(1) The name of the RIN generator.
(2) The EPA company registration number of the renewable fuel producer, RNG producer, or foreign ethanol producer, as applicable.
(4) The EPA facility registration number of the facility at which the renewable fuel producer, RNG producer, or foreign ethanol producer produced the batch, as applicable.
(11) The volume of ethanol denaturant, if applicable, and applicable equivalence value of each batch.
(18) The type of RIN generation protocol (
(c) Each time any party sells, separates, or retires RINs, all the following information must be submitted to EPA via the submitting party's EMTS account within five (5) business days of the reportable event. Each time any party purchases RINs, all the following information must be submitted to EPA via the submitting party's EMTS account within ten (10) business days of the reportable event. The reportable event for a RIN purchase or sale occurs on the date of transfer per § 80.1453(a)(4). The reportable event for a RIN separation or retirement occurs on the date of separation or retirement as described in § 80.1429 or § 80.1434. EPA in its sole discretion may allow a party to submit information under this paragraph (c) outside the applicable 5- or 10-business-day deadline.
(a) * * *
(12) * * *
(v) Renewable naphtha. “This volume of neat or blended renewable naphtha is designated and intended for use as transportation fuel or jet fuel in the 48 U.S. contiguous states and Hawaii. This naphtha may only be used as a gasoline blendstock, E85 blendstock, or jet fuel. Any person exporting this fuel is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 80.1430.”.
(vii) Renewable fuels other than ethanol, biodiesel, heating oil, renewable diesel, naphtha, or butanol. “This volume of neat or blended renewable fuel is designated and intended to be used as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in the 48 U.S. contiguous states and Hawaii. Any person exporting this fuel is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 80.1430.”.
(d) For renewable fuel oil, the PTD of the renewable fuel oil shall state: “This volume of renewable fuel oil is designated and intended to be used to heat or cool interior spaces of homes or buildings to control ambient climate for human comfort. Do NOT use for process heat or cooling or any other purpose, as these uses are prohibited pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1460(g).”.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(3) * * *
(ix) All facility-determined values used in the calculations under § 80.1426 and the data used to obtain those values.
(8) A producer of renewable fuel oil must keep copies of all contracts which describe the renewable fuel oil under contract with each end user.
(c) * * *
(1) Any RIN-generating foreign producer or importer of renewable fuel must keep records of feedstock purchases and transfers associated with renewable fuel for which RINs are generated, sufficient to verify that feedstocks used are renewable biomass.
(d) * * *
(1)(i) Starting January 1, 2026, any domestic producer of renewable fuel that generates RINs for such fuel must keep records of feedstock purchases and transfers (
(ii) Except as provided in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section, any domestic producer of renewable fuel that generates RINs for such fuel must keep documents associated with feedstock purchases and transfers that identify where the feedstocks were produced and are sufficient to verify that feedstocks used are renewable biomass if RINs are generated.
(k) * * *
(1)
(i) Documentation recording the sale of renewable CNG/LNG for use as transportation fuel relied upon in § 80.1426(f)(10), § 80.1426(f)(11), or for use of biogas for process heat to make renewable fuel as relied upon in § 80.1426(f)(12) and the transfer of title of the biogas/CNG/LNG from the point of biogas production to the facility which sells or uses the fuel for transportation purposes.
(ii) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of biogas/CNG/LNG relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(10) that was delivered to the facility which sells or uses the fuel for transportation purposes.
(iii) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of biogas/CNG/LNG relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(11), or biogas relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(12) that was placed into the commercial distribution.
(iv) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of biogas relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(12) at the point of distribution.
(v) Affidavits, EPA-approved documentation, or data from a real-time electronic monitoring system, confirming that the amount of the biogas/CNG/LNG relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(10) and (11) was used for transportation purposes only, and for no other purpose. The RIN generator must obtain affidavits, or monitoring system data under this paragraph (k), at least once per calendar quarter.
(vi) The biogas producer's Compliance Certification required under Title V of the Clean Air Act.
(vii) Any other records as requested by EPA.
(2)
(l)
(2) Contracts and documents memorializing the sale of renewable fuel to parties who blend the fuel into gasoline or diesel fuel to produce a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel, or who use the renewable fuel in its neat form for a qualifying fuel use.
(3) * * *
(iv) A description of the finished fuel, and a statement that the fuel meets all applicable standards and was sold for use as a transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel.
(b) * * *
(4) Transfer to any person a RIN with a K code of 1 or 3 without transferring an appropriate volume of renewable fuel to the same person on the same day.
(g)
(g)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) Verify that feedstocks were properly identified in the reports, including the feedstock point of origin for domestic renewable fuel producers, and met the definition of renewable biomass.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(1) * * *
(vii) Feedstock(s) and biointermediate(s) are not renewable fuel for which RINs were previously generated unless the RINs were generated under § 80.1426(c)(6). For renewable fuels that have RINs generated under § 80.1426(c)(6), verify that renewable fuels used as a feedstock meet all applicable requirements of this paragraph (a)(1).
(3) * * *
(vii) Verify that appropriate RIN generation calculations are being followed under § 80.1426, including the feedstock point of origin.
(5)
(c) * * *
(1) Each independent third-party auditor must annually submit a general and at least one pathway-specific QAP to the EPA which demonstrates adherence to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and request approval on forms and using procedures specified by EPA.
(d) * * *
(1) A new QAP must be submitted to EPA according to paragraph (c) of this section and the independent third-party auditor must update their registration according to § 80.1450(g)(9) whenever any of the following changes occur at a renewable fuel or biointermediate production facility audited by an independent third-party auditor and the auditor does not possess an appropriate pathway-specific QAP that encompasses the change:
(2) A QAP ceases to be valid as the basis for verifying RINs or a biointermediate under a new pathway until a new pathway-specific QAP, submitted to the EPA under this paragraph (d), is approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) The independent third-party auditor must not own, buy, sell, or otherwise trade RINs unless required to replace an invalid RIN pursuant to § 80.1474.
(e) The independent third-party auditor must identify RINs generated from a renewable fuel producer or foreign renewable fuel producer as having been verified under a QAP.
(1) For RINs verified under a QAP pursuant to § 80.1469, RINs must be designated as Q-RINs and must be identified as having been verified under a QAP in EMTS.
(2) The independent third-party auditor must not identify RINs generated from a renewable fuel producer or foreign renewable fuel producer as having been verified under a QAP if a revised QAP must be submitted to and approved by the EPA under § 80.1469(d).
(3) The independent third-party auditor must not identify RINs generated for renewable fuel produced using a biointermediate as having been verified under a QAP unless the biointermediate used to produce the renewable fuel was verified under an approved QAP pursuant to § 80.1477.
(f)(1) Auditors may only verify RINs that have been generated after the audit required under § 80.1472 has been completed. Auditors may only verify biointermediates that were produced after the audit required under § 80.1472 has been completed. Auditors must only verify RINs generated from renewable fuels produced from biointermediates after the audit required under § 80.1472 has been completed for both the biointermediate production facility and the renewable fuel production facility.
(2) Verification of RINs or biointermediates may continue for no more than 200 days following an on-site visit or 380 days after an on-site visit if a previously the EPA-approved remote monitoring system is in place at the renewable fuel production facility.
(a)
(2) An audit must be based on a QAP per § 80.1469.
(3) Each audit must verify every element contained in an applicable and approved QAP.
(4) Each audit must include a review of documents generated by the renewable fuel producer or biointermediate producer.
(b)
(i) At least two times per calendar year; or
(ii) In the event an auditor uses a remote monitoring system approved by the EPA, at least one time per calendar year.
(2) An on-site visit specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section must occur no more than:
(i) 200 days after the previous on-site visit. The 200-day period must start the day after the previous on-site visit ends; or
(ii) 380 days after the previous on-site visit if a previously approved (by EPA) remote monitoring system is in place at the renewable fuel production facility, foreign ethanol production facility, or biointermediate production facility, as applicable. The 380-day period must start the day after the previous on-site visit ends.
(3) An on-site visit must include verification of all QAP elements that require inspection or evaluation of the physical attributes of the renewable fuel production facility, foreign ethanol production facility, or biointermediate production facility, as applicable.
(4) The on-site visit must be overseen by a professional engineer, as specified in § 80.1450(b)(2)(i)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(B).
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(1) The RIN in question was verified through a quality assurance audit pursuant to § 80.1472 using an approved QAP as specified in § 80.1469.
(d)
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(5) Within 60 days of receiving a notification from the EPA that a PIR generator has failed to perform a corrective action required pursuant to this section, the party that owns the invalid RIN is required to do one of the following:
(i) Retire the invalid RIN.
(ii) If the invalid RIN has already been used for compliance with an obligated party's RVO, correct the RVO to subtract the invalid RIN.
(d) * * *
(2) The number of RINs retired must be equal to the number of PIRs or invalid RINs being replaced, subject to paragraph (e) of this section if applicable.
(h) * * *
(1) Each biointermediate producer must assign a number (the “batch number”) to each batch of biointermediate consisting of their EPA-issued company registration number, the EPA-issued facility registration number, the last two digits of the compliance year in which the batch was produced, and a unique number for the batch during the compliance year (
(b) QAPs approved by EPA to verify biointermediate production must meet the requirements in § 80.1469, as applicable.
(c) Quality assurance audits, when performed, must be conducted in accordance with the requirements in § 80.1472.
(c) * * *
(2) The independent third-party auditor must conduct a site visit of each feedstock aggregator's establishment as specified in § 80.1471(f). Instead of verifying RINs with a site visit of the feedstock aggregator's establishment every 200 days as specified in § 80.1471(f)(2), the independent third-party auditor may verify RINs with a site visit every 380 days.
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7522-7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7550, and 7601.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(2) Any fuel (including nonpetroleum diesel fuel or a fuel blend that contains nonpetroleum diesel fuel) that is intended or used to power a vehicle or engine that is designed to operate using diesel fuel.
(c) * * *
(1) ASTM D86-23ae2, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products and Liquid Fuels at Atmospheric Pressure, approved December 1, 2023 (“ASTM D86”); IBR approved for § 1090.1350(b).
(2) ASTM D287-22, Standard Test Method for API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products (Hydrometer Method), approved December 1, 2022 (“ASTM D287”); IBR approved for § 1090.1337(d).
(4) ASTM D976-21e1, Standard Test Method for Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels, approved November 1, 2021 (“ASTM D976”); IBR approved for § 1090.1350(b).
(8) ASTM D2622-24a, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
(11) ASTM D3606-24a, Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Spark Ignition Fuels by Gas Chromatography, approved November 1, 2024 (“ASTM D3606”); IBR approved for § 1090.1360(c).
(15) ASTM D4737-21, Standard Test Method for Calculated Cetane Index by Four Variable Equation, approved November 1, 2021 (“ASTM D4737”); IBR approved for § 1090.1350(b).
(16) ASTM D4806-21a, Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, approved October 1, 2021 (“ASTM D4806”); IBR approved for § 1090.1395(a).
(17) ASTM D4814-24b, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, approved December 1, 2024 (“ASTM D4814”); IBR approved for §§ 1090.80; 1090.1395(a).
(18) ASTM D5134-21, Standard Test Method for Detailed Analysis of Petroleum Naphthas through n-Nonane by Capillary Gas Chromatography, approved December 1, 2021 (“ASTM D5134”); IBR approved for § 1090.1350(b).
(21) ASTM D5453-24, Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence, approved October 15, 2024 (“ASTM D5453”); IBR approved for § 1090.1350(b).
(25) ASTM D5842-23, Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement, approved October 1, 2023 (“ASTM D5842”); IBR approved for § 1090.1335(d).
(28) ASTM D6259-23, Standard Practice for Determination of a Pooled Limit of Quantitation for a Test Method, approved May 1, 2023 (“ASTM D6259”); IBR approved for § 1090.1355(b).
(32) ASTM D6708-24, Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material, approved March 1, 2024 (“ASTM D6708”); IBR approved for §§ 1090.1360(c), 1090.1365(d) and (f), and 1090.1375(c).
(33) ASTM D6729-20, Standard Test Method for Determination of Individual Components in Spark Ignition Engine Fuels by 100 Metre Capillary High Resolution Gas Chromatography, approved June 1, 2020 (“ASTM D6729”); IBR approved for § 1090.1350(b).
(34) ASTM D6730-22, Standard Test Method for Determination of Individual Components in Spark Ignition Engine Fuels by 100-Metre Capillary (with Precolumn) High-Resolution Gas Chromatography, approved November 1, 2022 (“ASTM D6730”); IBR approved for § 1090.1350(b).
(35) ASTM D6751-24, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blendstock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, approved March 1, 2024 (“ASTM D6751”); IBR approved for §§ 1090.300(a) and 1090.1350(b).
(36) ASTM D6792-23c, Standard Practice for Quality Management Systems in Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants Testing Laboratories, approved November 1, 2023 (“ASTM D6792”); IBR approved for § 1090.1450(c).
(37) ASTM D7717-11 (Reapproved 2021), Standard Practice for Preparing Volumetric Blends of Denatured Fuel Ethanol and Gasoline Blendstocks for Laboratory Analysis, approved October 1, 2021 (“ASTM D7717”); IBR approved for § 1090.1340(b).
(38) ASTM D7777-24, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, or API Gravity of Liquid Petroleum by Portable Digital Density Meter, approved July 1, 2024 (“ASTM D7777”); IBR approved for § 1090.1337(d).
(a) * * *
(3) Biodiesel that meets ASTM D6751 (incorporated by reference in § 1090.95) is not subject to the cetane index or aromatic content standards in § 1090.305(c). Biodiesel or biodiesel blends that do not meet ASTM D6751 remain subject to the cetane index or aromatic content standards in § 1090.305(c).
(a)
(b) * * *
(1)
(e) For testing of diesel fuel (including nonpetroleum diesel fuel) and ECA marine fuel to meet the standards in subpart D of this part, demonstrate homogeneity using one of the procedures specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.