Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), Department of Justice (“DOJ”).
Interim final rule; request for comment.
This interim final rule (“IFR”) amends existing DHS and DOJ regulations. It provides exclusive DHS procedures for the issuance of civil monetary penalties under the Immigration and Nationality Act for aliens who fail to depart voluntarily during the voluntary departure period, willfully fail or refuse to depart after a final removal order and certain other proscribed activities, or are apprehended while improperly entering or attempting to enter the United States. The IFR also transfers the appeals process for these penalties from DOJ's Board of Immigration Appeals to DHS.
You may submit comments on this IFR, identified by DHS Docket Number ICEB-2025-0034, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to the Departments' officials, will not be considered comments on the rule and may not receive a response from the Departments. The Departments cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition, the Departments cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs, DVDs, or USB drives. The Departments are not accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your comment using
Instructions for providing comments are in the
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or the “Act”) authorizes the imposition of numerous civil monetary penalties for various immigration-related violations.
Prior to 1996, however, the INA generally did not authorize civil monetary penalties against aliens who violated the immigration laws. In 1996, Congress substantially amended the INA through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546. The purpose of IIRIRA was to enhance immigration enforcement and the consequences of violating the nation's immigration laws. H.R. Rep. No. 104-469, pt. 1, at 1, 107 (1996). In furtherance of that purpose,
First, under section 240B(d)(1)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d)(1)(A), Congress authorized the imposition of civil monetary penalties against aliens granted voluntary departure who fail to depart the United States within an allotted period. Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-597. Voluntary departure is a discretionary form of relief that allows certain aliens—either before the conclusion of removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a (“section 240 removal proceedings”), or after being found removable—to request and be granted permission by an Immigration Judge to depart the United States at their own expense as an alternative to formal removal proceedings and the entry of a formal removal order.
To promote compliance with voluntary-departure orders, Congress imposed a civil penalty of between $1,992 and $9,970, as adjusted for inflation, for failing to depart voluntarily during the period specified.
Second, under section 274D(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324d(a)(1), DHS has the authority to impose civil monetary penalties on an alien who is subject to a final order of removal and who willfully fails or refuses to (A) depart the United States pursuant to that order, (B) make a timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary for departure, or (C) present for removal at the time and place required by DHS. Most aliens subject to these penalties have been ordered removed at the conclusion of section 240 removal proceedings.
Third, section 275(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1325(b)(1), provides that an alien who is apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States improperly is subject to a civil penalty. The penalty, which DHS has adjusted for inflation, ranges from at least $100 to not more than $500 for each entry or attempted entry.
Additionally, Congress amended section 280(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1330(b), to establish the Immigration Enforcement Account, Border and Transportation Security.
Both ICE and United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) have the authority to administer civil monetary penalties related to violations of the immigration laws and immigration court orders.
In 1952, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) issued regulations at 8 CFR part 280 on the procedures that apply to most civil monetary penalties authorized under the INA.
Indeed, since 1957 there have been minimal regulatory updates to 8 CFR part 280.
Prior to this IFR, however, 8 CFR part 280 required DHS to apply the following procedures to impose most civil monetary penalties authorized under the INA,
• When an authorized DHS employee has a reason to believe that an alien is subject to a civil monetary penalty under the INA, the alien is served a Notice of Intention to Fine (“NIF”). 8 CFR 280.1, 280.11.
• The alien is allowed a 30-day period to respond to the NIF with a written defense, under oath, along with a request for an interview, or choose not to respond to the NIF. 8 CFR 280.12-.13. An immigration officer can extend the 30-day response period for good cause shown. 8 CFR 280.12.
• If requested, a personal interview is held where the alien may present any evidence in opposition to the civil penalty.
• An immigration officer then prepares a report summarizing any information, documents, and statements the alien provides in support of why the penalty should not be imposed. The immigration officer also provides a recommendation. 8 CFR 280.13(b).
• The immigration officer submits this report, along with their recommendation as to whether a penalty be issued, to the appropriate deciding official for review.
• Depending on the decision of the deciding official, the alien is notified of the decision and of the opportunity to file an appeal with DOJ's BIA within 30 days of the service of the decision being appealed.
• If an alien appeals, DHS may reopen and reconsider its decision if the disposition is to issue no penalties or otherwise grant the benefit requested on appeal. 8 CFR 1003.5(b). However, if a new decision is not made within 45 days of the briefs being received or due, or if the alien does not agree with DHS's new decision, the record of proceeding is immediately forwarded to the BIA.
• If the BIA denies the appeal, the original civil penalty stands.
Under the current regulations, aliens are served a copy of the NIF by personal service.
Under the appeals process in 8 CFR part 280 (for the three penalties that are the subject of this rule), aliens challenging a civil monetary penalty may appeal to the BIA.
Although DHS and its predecessor, INS, have had the authority to assess civil monetary penalties for failure to depart and unlawful entry since 1996, DHS did not issue any of these penalties until after Executive Order 13768,
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159,
On March 17, 2025, the ICE Acting Director delegated authority to ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations' (“ERO”) Executive Associate Director (“EAD”), Deputy EAD, and Field Office Directors to administer and enforce these civil fines.
Related to these efforts, DHS is taking additional action to encourage illegal aliens to depart the United States voluntarily, including aliens who are subject to the failure-to-depart civil monetary penalties, through DHS's CBP Home mobile application (“CBP Home app”), consistent with Presidential Proclamation 10935,
Through this IFR, the Departments are streamlining the process for imposing civil monetary penalties on aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully or have failed to depart after being ordered removed or granted voluntary departure.
DHS believes that the nature of the failure-to-depart and unlawful entry penalties supports the need for more streamlined procedures. The unlawful entry civil penalties under section 275(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1325(b), typically turn on routine and straightforward determinations of fact that are readily verifiable by DHS. Aliens intercepted while entering or attempting to enter the United States at an improper time or place have, by definition, violated section 275(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1325(b), and therefore the documented encounter serves as the only fact required to impose the penalty in these instances. For aliens who enter unlawfully and are later encountered in the interior of the United States, ICE and CBP immigration officers typically prepare Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, which documents the apprehension or encounter and includes the alien's immigration history. The information on the Form I-213 is entitled to a strong presumption of reliability,
The same is true for the failure-to-depart civil monetary penalties under sections 240B(d) and 274D(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d) and 1324d(a)(1). An alien subject to a failure-to-depart penalty has typically already availed himself of the immigration process, has had the opportunity to request relief or protection from removal, was ordered removed or granted voluntary departure, and was made aware of the civil penalties associated with failing to comply with the removal or voluntary departure order.
In the vast majority of cases, United States Government records will sufficiently establish the facts necessary to demonstrate that the alien is subject to these civil monetary penalties. DHS maintains records of an alien's immigration history, including removal and voluntary departure orders, information about any pending appeals or motions to reopen, and copies of any
Moreover, the alien's immigration court records will typically demonstrate that the alien was aware of the obligation to depart the United States and, when combined with the alien's failure to do so, will ordinarily raise a sufficient inference that the alien willfully or voluntary failed to depart. Indeed, when an alien is granted voluntary departure, the alien is informed by the Immigration Judge that the alien must depart within the allotted time and that failing to do so will subject the alien to civil monetary penalties.
Given the straightforward and readily determinable nature of the failure-to-depart penalties, DHS anticipates that aliens will have limited grounds to contest them. For civil penalties under section 240B(d) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), the BIA has held that an alien's ability to challenge his failure to depart is “limited to situations in which an alien, through no fault of his or her own, is unaware of the voluntary departure order or is physically unable to depart.”
DHS notes that there are other grounds in section 274D(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324d(a)(1), that could subject an alien to a civil monetary penalty and recognizes that this IFR's procedures apply to those penalties as well. Specifically, aliens who are subject to a final removal order can be fined for (1) willfully failing to make a timely application in good faith for travel documents; or (2) willfully failing or refusing to present for removal at the time and place directed by DHS.
Civil penalties under section 274D(a)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324d(a)(1)(B), typically involve situations where an alien is in detention and the immigration officer is engaged in efforts to remove the alien, and the alien resists those efforts or refuses to take requested action necessary to secure travel documents. In these circumstances, the alien's liability for a civil monetary penalty will typically be based on the alien's actions that indisputably demonstrate that the alien is willfully failing or refusing to assist ICE's efforts to secure or finalize travel documents for the alien, including refusal to sign travel documents or requisite paperwork.
Similarly, civil penalties under section 274D(a)(1)(C) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324d(a)(1)(C), for failure to report for removal, when aliens are not in detention, are also typically readily determinable based on an alien's actions. Aliens released from DHS custody after a removal order are issued an Order of Supervision (“OSUP”), Form I-220B. 8 CFR 241.5(a). Aliens released on an OSUP have final orders of removal and must appear at ICE offices for check-ins or to surrender for removal. Aliens released by ICE on OSUPs will be subject to conditions of release and reporting requirements based on the individual facts and circumstances. When ICE directs an alien on an OSUP to report for removal, and the alien fails to report as directed, this failure will typically demonstrate an alien's liability for a civil penalty for willfully failing to present for removal at the time and place directed by DHS absent evidence that the alien's failure to appear was due to circumstances beyond the alien's control.
Additionally, an alien released on an OSUP will normally be given a certain amount of time to provide evidence that the alien has applied for a passport or visited an embassy. ICE communicates this information to the alien in the OSUP. An alien's failure to apply for
As explained in Section II.B of this preamble, the civil monetary penalty procedures in 8 CFR part 280 were designed in 1952 for fines against airlines and carriers that violate certain provisions of the INA designed to control the transport of aliens into the United States. In 1996, Congress authorized DHS's predecessor agency INS to also impose civil monetary penalties on aliens who enter the United States unlawfully or fail to depart. DHS has never updated the procedures in 8 CFR part 280 to account for this new authority because until recently the unlawful entry and failure-to-depart penalties have rarely been used. The Departments have now determined that this IFR is needed because procedures in 8 CFR part 280 do not align with the straightforward and readily determinable nature of these particular penalties and the context in which they arise.
First, the requirement that DHS must serve civil fine notices and civil monetary penalty decisions on the alien in person or by certified mail does not necessarily align with certain statutory requirements. Under the INA, all aliens within the United States, with limited exceptions, must register with DHS and notify DHS of their address and any change of address within ten days from the date of such change.
Second, the 30-day timeline for an alien to contest a penalty is unnecessary given both the context of these penalties and their straightforward nature. Most aliens subject to the failure-to-depart penalties have already been warned of their obligations to depart the United States during removal proceedings and that failure to do so may result in a penalty. Similarly, when an immigration officer apprehends an alien for unlawful entry, the officer interviews the alien, decides whether the alien is inadmissible, and informs the alien of the determination. In addition, where civil monetary penalties will be issued, the immigration officer will inform an alien that he or she is subject to civil monetary penalties for unlawful entry. In these circumstances, DHS believes that an alien does not need 30 days to review and respond to the fine because the alien is already on notice that his or her conduct constitutes a violation of the nation's immigration laws that could result in a penalty. Additionally, the need for a more limited appeal period is supported by the straightforward nature of these penalties and the limited grounds to challenge them as discussed above in this Section II.D.1 of this preamble.
The same is true of the in-person interview under 8 CFR 280.12. As discussed above, in the vast majority of cases, the alien's immigration records will demonstrate liability for the penalty. Similarly, for aliens who have entered unlawfully, the fact of apprehension by CBP for crossing the border illegally and the documented encounter will, in most cases, provide the basis for the civil monetary penalty. Accordingly, DHS believes that an in-person hearing adds no value in the context of civil monetary penalties for unlawful entry and failure to depart. Rather, if an alien disputes the penalty, DHS will be able to accurately resolve the challenge through the alien's written submission given the alien has limited grounds to challenge these determinations, as discussed in Section II.D.1 of this preamble.
Finally, an alien's ability under 8 CFR part 280 to appeal a civil penalty decision to the BIA raises similar concerns. As discussed above, the legal and factual predicates for these penalties are relatively straightforward and readily determinable based on information within DHS's and the alien's possession. The BIA has no unique expertise with these penalties because, until very recently, they have rarely been used. Therefore, the Departments believe that there is no operational need for the BIA to adjudicate administrative appeals of DHS decisions for civil monetary penalties under sections 240B(d), 274D(a)(1), or 275(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), 1324d(a), or 1325(b), because these civil monetary penalties are both set and enforced by DHS and involve readily determinable information within DHS's possession. Accordingly, the Departments believe that BIA appellate review of these penalties is also unnecessary.
Without this IFR, the current procedures under 8 CFR part 280 have the potential to become unnecessarily burdensome and cause unnecessary delay as DHS expands its use of the failure to depart and unlawful entry civil monetary penalties.
The current personal service requirement has already proven to be overly burdensome, costly, and unnecessary. Personal delivery may require burdensome manual efforts to locate the alien. It may further require the use of multiple DHS agents or officers to appear on location to ensure officer safety, and multiple attempts at personal service if not effectuated on the first attempt, thereby diverting officers from their other duties. Additionally, service by certified mail involves preparation of individual mailings in each case, including handwriting envelopes, which has proven to be costly and resource intensive and would become even more so as DHS expands its use of these civil penalties. Indeed, ICE estimates that the certified mail requirement costs the agency $23.53 for each civil monetary penalty, which includes certified mail fees, materials, and labor. Therefore, without the changes in this IFR, the certified mail requirement has the potential to hinder DHS's ability to apply these civil penalties at scale. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in Section IV.E of this preamble, DHS believes that service of these civil monetary penalties by ordinary mail is “reasonably calculated under all the circumstances, to apprise” aliens of the fines and “afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”
The 30-day response period also has the potential to become administratively burdensome as DHS expands its use of these civil monetary penalties. A 30-day period for the alien to respond can lead to a growing number of outstanding NIFs that, when combined with the issuance of subsequent NIFs, can result in a growing backlog of civil penalties cases. As a result of the backlog, DHS would need to devote more time and resources towards managing, tracking, and closing out these NIFs. With more outstanding NIFs to manage, there is also an increased risk that some NIFs will slip through the cracks. As DHS expands the use of these civil monetary penalties, a longer response period has the potential to divert resources away from DHS's other immigration enforcement functions by requiring DHS to spend more time and resources on
Furthermore, the 30-day period requires DHS to stand by while the clock runs down. DHS cannot proceed with finalizing the NIF, including initiating the collection process. An administratively finalized NIF must go through ICE finance and the United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) before the collection process can begin. The 30-day period delays Treasury's ability to generate and send collection notices and invoices to aliens. A reduced appeal window affords the alien appellate rights while enabling the collections process to move at a more reasonable pace.
Similarly, ICE has limited resources to conduct interviews, and, if requested by a significant number of aliens, providing these interviews could impact ICE's ability to perform other critical immigration enforcement functions including apprehending, detaining, and removing unlawful aliens. In these circumstances, ICE would likely need to re-calibrate how many civil penalties it could issue at a time and this, in turn, could unnecessarily impede ICE's ability to impose these penalties quickly and at a scale necessary to respond to the significant number of aliens who have unlawfully entered or failed to depart the United States.
The BIA appeal process raises additional concerns. The BIA has a large backlog of cases and appeals, and BIA appeals take a long time to resolve.
Moreover, the BIA appeals process itself involves several steps that take time and requires substantial agency resources. When an alien appeals a DHS fine decision, DHS will need to prepare the administrative record and forward it to the BIA. DHS is also responsible for issuing briefing schedules and receiving and forwarding briefs to the BIA.
The Departments have considered streamlining the BIA process for appeals involving these civil penalties but have decided that it is more important that EOIR's resources are focused on their statutorily prescribed functions under the INA—adjudicating and reviewing appeals from section 240 removal proceedings and exercising authority with respect to other immigration-related functions explicitly provided in the INA. Indeed, if the BIA were to prioritize these cases over others, that action could impede the BIA's ability to decide other appeals in a timely manner, which could impact DHS's ability to secure final removal orders against aliens consistent with this Administration's enforcement priorities.
DHS acknowledges that it has issued a significant number of penalties to aliens in recent months using the process set forth in 8 CFR part 280, and very few aliens have contested them as discussed above in Section II.C of this preamble. However, DHS must ensure that the civil penalty procedures align with the straightforward nature of these penalties and do not hinder DHS's ability to apply these penalties efficiently in response to the scale of aliens who have violated the immigration laws and are subject to these monetary penalties. The current procedures collectively and individually have the potential to impede DHS's ability to issue and finalize these civil penalties at scale and in a timely and efficient manner that aligns with the straightforward nature and the circumstances under which these civil fines are issued.
The need for this IFR's more streamlined civil monetary penalty process is demonstrated by the sheer number of aliens who are potentially subject to the unlawful entry and failure-to- depart penalties. As noted in Proclamation 10888,
Moreover, DHS data indicates that the percentage of aliens who are ordered removed or granted voluntary departure and whose removal order has not been executed or whose voluntary departure is not confirmed has significantly increased in recent years.
An alien's failure to depart has serious consequences for immigration enforcement and the adjudication of immigration cases. An alien's failure to comply with a removal order risks undermining the authority of
Similarly, aliens who enter the United States unlawfully pose a significant strain on DHS resources and American communities and pose a threat to public safety and border security.
This IFR is a critical part of DHS's efforts to use all statutorily available tools to achieve the Administration's immigration enforcement and border security objectives. This includes issuance of civil monetary penalties to encourage aliens to comply with removal orders and voluntary departure orders and to deter unlawful entries. DHS has previously recognized that the efficacy of immigration enforcement measures depends on the Government's ability to apply them quickly and in proportion to the scale of the problem which, in turn, will reduce incentives that aliens may have to violate our nation's immigration laws.
Therefore, due to the significant increase in illegal immigration in recent years, DHS seeks to update the regulations that govern civil monetary penalties in an effort to maximize the use of all statutory provisions available to increase removal activity, disincentivize aliens from entering or remaining in the United States illegally, promote public safety, and ensure that DHS has an effective, workable process to issue and collect civil monetary penalties.
For the above discussed reasons, through this IFR, DHS is adding a new 8 CFR part 281 to govern the process for civil monetary penalties for unlawful entry and failure-to-depart to address the above concerns and to better ensure that the process aligns with the straightforward nature of these penalties and the need for DHS to impose them quickly and at scale.
Section IV of this preamble discusses these new procedures in detail. In short, DHS is streamlining the process for assessing and imposing civil penalties by: (1) removing the NIF process; (2) shortening the timeline for an alien to contest a civil penalty decision; (3) creating a simplified process for aliens to c8 u.s.contest civil penalties through a written appeal that will be decided by a DHS supervisory immigration officer, rather than the BIA; and (4) allowing DHS to serve civil monetary penalty decisions and orders by ordinary mail. DOJ is making conforming changes to its regulations.
In comparison to the process set forth in 8 CFR part 280, DHS believes these procedures will reduce potential and unnecessary administrative burdens and allow DHS to reach a final decision more quickly. These changes are needed to ensure that DHS can improve its efforts to impose these penalties while continuing to prioritize the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens in the United States in violation of the immigration laws.
At the same time, for the reasons discussed more fully in Section IV.E of this preamble, DHS believes that these changes are consistent with due process. Under the new regulation, a supervisory immigration officer must issue a decision that informs the alien of the statutory and factual basis for the penalty and advises the alien of the requirements for filing an appeal. The alien has 15 business days to appeal and can use the appeal form that DHS has developed for these fines. If the alien files a timely appeal, a supervisory immigration officer who did not issue the initial decision will review the record de novo and may request additional evidence or information. DHS has determined that a shortened appeal period, elimination of the option for an in-person interview, and shift from BIA to DHS review better aligns with the nature of these fines, which typically turn on routine and straightforward determinations of fact that can be decided quickly on a written record. The revised process protects an alien's ability to contest the fine and better ensures that DHS can efficiently reach a final decision, which is critical to DHS's ability to use these statutorily authorized penalties swiftly and at the scale needed to respond to the large number of aliens who have entered the United States or remain unlawfully.
The Departments acknowledge that, in 2021, DHS rescinded the 2018 delegation orders that allowed ICE officers to enforce civil monetary penalties against aliens who unlawfully remained in the United States.
Upon reconsideration, DHS believes that its limited experience implementing those civil monetary penalties in prior years does not demonstrate that these penalties are innately ineffective. At the time ICE rescinded prior failure-to-depart penalties in 2021, ICE had only 26 active penalties.
Additionally, DHS rescinded the prior delegations in part to focus limited enforcement and removal resources on aliens “posing the greatest risk to national security and public safety in accordance with the [prior Administration's] guidance on civil immigration enforcement and removal priorities.”
Finally, with respect to ICE's prior determination that the resource burdens outweigh the amount that can be collected from a transient population of aliens that lacks the means to pay, as noted above, this IFR is intended to reduce potential resource burdens by streamlining the process. Moreover, DHS notes that the collection of civil monetary penalties is not the only goal. Maximizing the use of these civil penalties is intended to help incentivize illegal aliens who are subject to them to voluntarily leave the United States. To help achieve this objective, DHS has announced that it will rescind outstanding civil penalties in certain cases where an alien uses the CBP Home app to depart the United States as discussed in Section II.C of this preamble.
Additionally, DHS, in coordination with Treasury, has made recent improvements to the collection process for the failure-to-depart civil monetary penalties. These efforts are intended to increase the U.S. Government's ability to successfully collect these fines, including through processes that allow DHS to more quickly send civil monetary fine packages to Treasury. On receipt of the civil monetary fine packages, Treasury can begin using its suite of collection methods, including call centers and skip tracing, to locate the alien and collect the fine. These changes to the collections process, in combination with this IFR's changes to the civil monetary penalty process, are intended to better ensure that DHS can more effectively enforce the collection of civil monetary penalties against aliens who choose to remain in the United States unlawfully rather than taking advantage of incentives to depart voluntarily.
In sum, DHS believes that this IFR's streamlined procedures, paired with incentives to depart and recent changes to the collections process, minimize ICE's prior concerns about the effectiveness of these penalties. Moreover, it is DHS's assessment that this IFR would still be needed, even if it does not fully resolve all of the challenges associated with enforcing these penalties against aliens, given the large number of aliens who have entered and remained in the country illegally under the prior Administration.
This rule does not change the process for all civil penalties that DHS can impose under the INA. Rather, this rule addresses civil monetary penalties issued under sections 240B(d), 274D(a)(1), and 275(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), 1324d(a), and 1325(b), and creates a revised process only for these specified penalties. The Departments believe it makes sense to streamline the process for adjudicating these penalties while retaining the current process for other INA civil penalties under 8 CFR part 280 that primarily relate to carrier violations.
The revised process is particularly appropriate for these three provisions because it will address a pressing need. Specifically, this IFR is needed to ensure that DHS can efficiently impose civil monetary fines in response to the large number of unlawful entrants and aliens who have failed to depart the United States, a population of high enforcement priority.
Additionally, the civil monetary penalties covered by this rule differ from other penalties that are issued by CBP using the process at 8 CFR part 280. Those penalties largely involve carrier fines that are issued against entities such as airlines, shipping lines, cruise
In comparison, this rule covers a more limited set of civil monetary penalties, involving aliens who enter the country unlawfully or fail to depart after a removal or voluntary departure order, including taking certain action that impedes removal. Additionally, unlike many of the other civil monetary penalties covered by 8 CFR part 280 applicable to carriers, aliens who are subject to unlawful entry and failure-to-depart penalties cannot seek mitigation. And, as discussed above in Section II.D of this preamble, the vast majority of cases involving the unlawful entry and failure-to-depart penalties typically turn on readily verifiable and straightforward determinations of fact, making it less likely that aliens will have grounds to contest these penalties. The Departments believe that these differences, in combination with the pressing need to address the scale of aliens who are subject to these penalties, supports this rule's more limited approach at this time.
The Attorney General
Within DHS, the HSA separated immigration functions and responsibilities into three principal components: CBP, ICE, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
The Secretary may redelegate or confer any of the DHS functions and authorities with respect to the immigration laws at her discretion to any official, officer, or employee of DHS (including by means of successive redelegations).
The HSA retains in DOJ, under the direction of the Attorney General, the functions of EOIR.
Rather, DOJ's involvement in this rulemaking is necessary because the existing EOIR regulations provide the BIA with appellate authority to review DHS decisions involving certain civil monetary penalties authorized under the INA, including those covered by this rule.
This IFR specifically addresses DHS procedures for imposing civil monetary penalties under sections 240B(d), 274D(a)(1), and 275(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), 1324d(a), 1325(b). Those statutes do not specify the procedures that immigration officers must follow to impose those civil monetary penalties, and they do not require DOJ review of any such fines.
Regulations at 8 CFR part 280 govern DHS's imposition of civil monetary penalties for immigration violations. This IFR adds a new part, 8 CFR part 281, to govern the process for imposing civil monetary penalties under sections 240B(d), 274D(a)(1), and 275(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), 1324d(a)(1), 1325(b).
This IFR applies prospectively to actions to impose civil monetary penalties that are initiated on or after June 27, 2025. Aliens who had the procedures in 8 CFR part 280 initiated against them at the time of the effective date of this IFR would continue to be subject to those procedures, as well as the related DOJ provisions in 8 CFR parts 1003 and 1280. The IFR states these provisions are controlling where the alien had been served a NIF prior to the effective date of this rule.
The revised process no longer requires DHS to issue and personally serve NIFs and wait for any responses from the alien prior to issuing a decision.
The immigration officer's decision and order will inform the alien of the statutory basis for the penalty and the amount and type of the penalty being imposed, and will include a brief statement of the reasons for the decision.
Furthermore, the decision and order will include advisals informing the aliens of their right to appeal, the process for such an appeal, the right to be represented by counsel at their own expense, and an opportunity to provide any supporting evidence or documentation to challenge the penalty.
The IFR also allows DHS to serve the decision and order of civil monetary penalties under sections 240B(d), 274D(a)(1), or 275(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), 1324d(a)(1), or 1325(b), either in person or by routine service, as defined in 8 CFR 103.8(a)(1)(i), which includes regular mail. 8 CFR 281.1(d). As discussed above in Section II.D of this preamble, the existing procedures in 8 CFR part 280 unnecessarily require DHS to use personal service or certified mail to impose these civil penalties. For the reasons discussed in that Section, DHS believes that the Government should be able to serve the alien by routine mail because aliens have a legal obligation to report their address to the Government, including any change of address, aliens are advised of this requirement and DHS facilitates their ability to report any change of address, and DHS officers have access to aliens' address information that is contained in multiple systems, including those maintained by DHS components and EOIR. DHS also believes that this change will be less costly and burdensome than requiring service by certified mail or personal service, and increases DHS's ability to impose these civil monetary penalties.
It is worth noting that an NTA, which carries greater weight because its filing initiates section 240 removal proceedings, can be served by regular mail. INA 239(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1). Prior to 1996, the statute required the Government to use certified mail, but IIRIRA amended the provision to allow charging documents to be sent using other forms of mail (deleting the “certified” part).
For the civil penalties covered by this IFR, the Departments are also streamlining the unnecessary and drawn-out process described in 8 CFR part 280 that applies when an alien contests a civil penalty. As discussed above, under 8 CFR part 280, an alien has 30 days to contest a civil penalty, which can be extended, can choose to have an in-person interview, and can appeal DHS's final decision to the BIA. Through this IFR, DHS is shortening the 30-day response period and creating a simplified paper appeals process that will be decided by a DHS supervisory immigration officer rather than the BIA.
First, an alien will have 15 business days to file a written notice of appeal to DHS.
Second, if an alien appeals, a supervisory immigration officer who did not issue the initial decision and order will review the alien's appeal within 10 days of receiving the appeal.
The supervisory officer will then decide the alien's appeal on the paper record; there is no option for the alien to request an in-person interview.
Finally, the supervisory officer's decision is the final agency action unless the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies the decision for review as discussed below in Section IV.D of this preamble.
As further discussed above in Section II.D of this preamble, these changes better ensure that DHS can finalize these straightforward civil monetary penalty decisions quickly and at scale, while also relaxing the filing requirements to ensure that if an alien contests the penalty, the alien can do so quickly. A shorter appeal period and a paper review process rather than an in-person interview better align with the straightforward and readily verifiable nature of these penalties. In the vast majority of these cases, DHS documentary evidence or conduct observed by an immigration officer will demonstrate the alien's liability for these penalties. Moreover, an alien will ordinarily possess the necessary information to quickly contest a decision if there are grounds to do so, including, for example, medical records after a hospitalization, criminal records after incarceration, documents indicating that the alien has applied for, or took steps to obtain, travel documents, or similar objective evidence demonstrating that the alien did not voluntarily or willfully fail to depart or did not receive notice of a removal or voluntary departure order. The longer period to contest a fine and ability to ask for an interview under 8 CFR part 280 would not enhance the accuracy, fairness, or reliability of the process for these civil penalties.
Similar reasons support the Departments' decision to remove the BIA's jurisdiction over appeals involving these civil penalties. There is no operational need for the BIA to adjudicate administrative appeals of DHS decisions for civil monetary penalties under sections 240B(d), 274D(a)(1), or 275(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), 1324d(a)(1), or 1325(b), because these civil monetary penalties are both set and enforced by DHS and, as discussed throughout this preamble, are typically based on readily verifiable records and information within DHS's possession. Additionally, the BIA has no expertise with these fines, because only a handful have ever been appealed. Notably, DHS already exercises some review authority following a decision and order.
On the other hand, as explained in Section II.D.3 of this preamble, the BIA appeals process under 8 CFR part 280 could hinder DHS's ability to impose these penalties swiftly and at scale if aliens begin appealing them to the BIA in large numbers. This IFR better ensures that if an alien contests a civil monetary penalty, DHS can swiftly
In sum, the Departments have decided it is more appropriate for DHS to handle the appeals of decisions and orders of civil monetary penalties through this streamlined process under the new part 281. The revised procedures provide aliens with a meaningful opportunity to contest civil monetary penalties while balancing the Departments' interests in operating efficiently and fulfilling their missions.
As noted above in Section IV.C of this preamble, under this IFR, a decision imposing a civil monetary penalty against an alien is generally final when either a supervisory immigration officer decides the alien's appeal, or the appeal period expires and no appeal is taken. This IFR, however, includes two exceptions. First, 8 CFR 281(e)(4) clarifies that the Secretary, or the Secretary's designee, may certify for review any decision to issue civil monetary penalties for violations under sections 240B(d), 274D(a)(1), or 275(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), 1324d(a)(1), or 1325(b), and issue a new decision de novo. This change ensures that the Secretary maintains appropriate review authority and executive control over the actions of DHS.
Second, this IFR includes a provision allowing DHS to reopen a covered civil monetary penalty decision, in its sole discretion (
The ability to reopen, reconsider, and reduce or rescind fines in its discretion enables DHS to make modifications to fines imposed when it is in the best interest of the parties. For example, as discussed above in Sections II.C and D.4 of this preamble, DHS is currently rescinding fines imposed against aliens who depart the United States voluntarily using the CBP Home app. Therefore, 8 CFR 281.1(f)(1) allows DHS to continue to do so after this IFR goes into effect. Moreover, if an alien is seeking to enter the United States on a visa, DHS may determine that a civil penalty previously imposed must be paid but may decide to reduce the amount of the fine to an amount payable by the alien. Quite simply, the ability for DHS to reopen, reconsider, and rescind or reduce fines provides DHS with flexibility to respond to changing policy goals and enforcement directions, consistent with DHS's broad discretion over whether and how to take enforcement actions against aliens who violate the immigration laws.
Moreover, this authority is appropriate because it will ensure that DHS has a mechanism to reopen, reconsider, and rescind or reduce a civil monetary penalty decision that was issued erroneously if DHS becomes aware of information that calls into question the validity of the decision or the amount of the penalty imposed. In this regard, DHS notes that when a discretionary determination is made by DHS to reopen, reconsider, and rescind or reduce a fine, this change will always be to the benefit of an alien as it results in the reduction or elimination of a fine previously imposed. At the same time, 8 CFR 281.1(f)(1) also makes clear that an alien has no right to seek reopening and reconsideration. DHS believes that allowing aliens to seek reopening and reconsideration, even under a heightened standard, would create an unacceptable risk that a large number of aliens would request reopening, which in turn could impede DHS's ability to issue final decisions quickly and at the scale needed to address the serious challenges created by unchecked illegal immigration and unlawful presence.
The procedures in 8 CFR part 281 are consistent with the requirements for due process established by the Supreme Court in
First, in issuing this IFR, the Departments have sufficiently taken into account an alien's property rights,
Second, the Departments believe that this IFR's procedures are sufficient to ensure a low risk of error for these civil penalty determinations. As an initial matter, civil penalties for failure-to-depart are generally only issued following the completion of section 240 removal proceedings that resulted in the issuance of an order requiring the alien's departure from the United States. These aliens have already received due process through section 240 removal proceedings, where they have had an opportunity to contest any charges against them with respect to immigration violations and have had an opportunity to apply for relief. Importantly, an Immigration Judge has also typically warned these aliens of the penalties associated with violating certain immigration laws.
Moreover, DHS believes that this IFR's revised procedures will sufficiently ensure that aliens have notice of the penalty decision and have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision, if necessary, through a simplified and streamlined process that better aligns with the straightforward nature of these penalties. As discussed above in Section IV.B of this preamble, the immigration officer's decision will contain information that informs the alien of the basis for the civil penalty, and it will provide advisals informing the alien of the right to appeal and the procedures that the alien must follow to file a notice of appeal.
There are numerous safeguards through statute and regulation as well as real time technology
On the other side of the ledger, DHS's interests are more substantial than the state's interest—securing tax revenue—that was at issue in
DHS is also simplifying the appeal process as discussed above in Section IV.C of this preamble. The foundation of due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard, and nothing in this rule eliminates either an alien's right to notice or an alien's opportunity to be heard on appeal. Rather, the revised process implements sufficient safeguards to preserve the alien's appellate rights. An alien may trigger an appeal by simply filing a notice of written appeal indicating that the alien is contesting the penalty. The alien may also, but is not required to, submit written argument or documentary evidence contesting the penalty. In either scenario, a supervisory immigration officer who did not issue the initial civil monetary penalty decision will review the record de novo, including the issuing officer's decision, the information that he relied on, and any written materials submitted by the alien. Therefore, the process provides meaningful appellate review by allowing the alien to have an additional layer of review through a supervisory immigration officer, one who was not involved in the initial decision and order of the civil monetary penalties.
If, on appeal, a supervisory immigration officer determines that the fine was improper, the notice of decision and order imposing the fine would be withdrawn. As such, DHS believes that these procedures minimize the “risk of an erroneous deprivation.”
The Departments do not believe that additional procedural safeguards beyond those adopted in this IFR would enhance the reliability, fairness, or accuracy of these civil penalty determinations. As discussed above in Section II.D.1 of this preamble, civil monetary fines typically turn on routine and straightforward determinations of fact and the procedures established in this IFR present little risk of an erroneous deprivation of an alien's interest.
Given these circumstances, DHS believes that a 30-day appeal window will not enhance the fairness of the civil penalty process because an alien does not need to prepare a complicated legal defense or evidentiary submission to challenge the civil penalty. Similarly, an in-person interview would not enhance the fairness or accuracy of the civil monetary penalty process because of the straightforward issues and types of evidence involved in these cases. If an alien, through no fault of his own, did not receive notice of the removal or voluntary departure order or was prevented from complying due to circumstances beyond his control, the alien can provide a written explanation and simple documentary evidence to support the claim. In these circumstances, DHS believes that an in-person interview would not add value.
Moreover, DHS believes that retaining BIA appellate review would not add value to the fairness or accuracy of the process for these civil monetary penalties. As discussed above in Section II.D.2, the BIA has no experience adjudicating these civil monetary penalties, and BIA review is unnecessary given these civil penalties typically turn on straightforward issues of fact within DHS's possession, rather than complicated questions of law. Finally, DHS believes that the appellate process provided by this IFR, which will be handled exclusively by DHS, will provide sufficient due process, including a second layer of review by a supervisory immigration officer who was not involved in the initial civil monetary penalty decision.
Finally, DHS believes that retaining the certified mail requirement would not increase the likelihood of aliens receiving notice of these fines. As discussed above in this Section of the preamble, DHS has reason to believe that many aliens will have an incentive to comply with statutory requirements to update their address with DHS, if necessary, because failure to do so can result in criminal consequences. In these circumstances, DHS believes that ordinary mail is reasonably calculated to reach the alien and certified mail would not add additional value.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized that mailing notices through regular mail may provide better notice than certified mail or other methods in some circumstances.
At bottom, DHS acknowledges that, as with any process, including the processes under 8 CFR part 280, there is always a risk that an alien could be issued a civil penalty in error or not receive notice. However, “procedural due process rules are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process as applied to the generality of cases.”
Third, the Government's interest in the revised civil penalty process, including the function involved and the administrative burdens, are substantial under the
The changes impact provisions that are not necessarily interrelated and can function independent of one another. As such, the Departments believe that most of the provisions of this IFR can function sensibly and independently of other provisions. Therefore, in the event that any provisions in this rule are invalidated by a reviewing court, the Departments intend the remaining provisions to remain in effect to the fullest extent possible.
For the reasons described below, the Departments have issued this IFR without prior notice and opportunity for comment and without a 30-day delayed effective date. Notwithstanding the explanation below, the Departments nonetheless welcome post-promulgation comment on all aspects of this IFR.
The Departments may forgo notice-and-comment because this IFR is a rule of “agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The procedural rule exception “covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although it may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.”
This rule satisfies this standard. The IFR changes only the manner in which the Departments issue and adjudicate civil monetary penalties and the manner in which an alien may contest such penalties. The IFR does not require the imposition of any new penalties or otherwise change the substantive criteria for issuing penalties. It therefore “impose[s] no new substantive obligations or burdens upon the parties' rights and interests.”
In sum, this IFR pertains solely to agency procedures and practices regarding the processing of cases before DHS and DOJ. This IFR does not diminish or reduce any substantive rights of the parties utilizing those practices and procedures, and it does not change the substantive standards by which DHS evaluates civil monetary penalties under sections 240B(d), 274D(a)(1), and 275(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), 1324d(a)(1), 1325(b).
The requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply to these regulatory changes because this rule involves a “foreign affairs function of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Courts have held that this exception applies when the rule in question “clearly and directly involves a foreign affairs function.”
This IFR is intended to facilitate DHS's ability to more effectively use statutorily authorized civil monetary penalties in response to the large number of unlawful entrants and aliens who have failed to depart the United States, a population of high enforcement priority. DHS believes that imposing these penalties at scale will, in turn, create disincentivizes for aliens to enter the United States unlawfully or remain after being ordered removed or granted voluntary departure.
Moving forward with actions like this IFR immediately will allow the United States Government to build on momentum with international partners to address shared challenges to border security and illegal immigration. The United States's border management strategy is predicated on the belief that migration is a shared responsibility among all countries in the region, and Executive Order 14150,
For its foreign policy efforts to succeed in this regard, the United States must demonstrate its own willingness to put in place appropriate measures like this IFR that will allow DHS to more effectively use available tools to disincentivize, prepare for and respond to ongoing migratory challenges and unlawful immigration. This IFR is one part of this Administration's efforts to reduce unlawful migration to the United States, by using all available tools under the INA to increase the consequences for aliens who make the dangerous journey to the United States and enter the country unlawfully. Such efforts will demonstrate to international partners the Unites States's commitment to addressing migratory challenges. As discussed in Section II.D.3 of this preamble, although southern border encounters between POEs have fallen significantly over the last few months, this Administration has made it a priority to take all measures to ensure that DHS maintains operational control at the border in order to prevent large scale migration and our southern border from becoming overrun as occurred under the last Administration. Loss of operational control of the border results in large number of migrants making the dangerous journey to the southern border through neighboring countries.
Moreover, the Administration is actively engaged in negotiations with other countries intended to address the large number of illegal aliens in the United States, including aliens who have failed to comply with removal and voluntary departure orders.
Here too, for these foreign policy efforts to succeed, the United States must demonstrate that it is taking immediate action, including through measures like this IFR, to help achieve the purpose of these international efforts and negotiations: to encourage other countries to cooperate with the United States's efforts to remove illegal aliens and to incentivize aliens to depart the United States voluntarily and return to their home countries. For example, this IFR is intended to encourage removable aliens, through the use of civil penalties, to make efforts to obtain travel documents that other countries, as a result of international negotiations, have agreed to provide.
Delaying enforcement measures like those adopted by this IFR would have undesirable consequences on the United States' ongoing foreign policy goals,
In addition, the Department of State recently described the foreign affairs aspect of immigration in its determination that “efforts . . . to control the status, entry, and exit of people . . . across the borders of the United States” constitute a foreign affairs function of the United States under the APA. In making this determination, the Department of State explained that “[s]ecuring America's borders and protecting its citizens from external threats is the first priority foreign affairs function of the United States” and noted that an unsecured border presents a range of threats to U.S. citizens, which can be eliminated or mitigated through the execution of the foreign affairs functions.
The Departments have determined that this rule can take immediate effect, notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553(d), for three independent reasons.
First, for the reasons discussed above in Section V.A.1 of this preamble, this final rule relates solely to agency procedure and practice and thus is not subject to the 30-day effective date for “substantive rules” under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
Second, for the reasons discussed in Section V.A.2 of this preamble, this rule involves a “foreign affairs function of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Such rules are exempt from all requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 including the 30-day effective date requirement at 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
Finally, although the Departments have not invoked the “good cause” exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as a basis to publish this IFR without prior notice and comment—the Departments have instead invoked the exceptions for procedural rules at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and for rules related to a “foreign affairs function of the United States” at 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)—there is “good cause” for this rule to take immediate effect pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Executive Order 12866,
This IFR will allow DHS to more quickly impose a greater number of civil penalties on aliens who have unlawfully entered the United States and those who remain after a removal or voluntary departure order. DHS has not assessed the extent to which this IFR will result in an increase in civil penalties collected by the Treasury. DHS believes that this effort will reduce potential agency resource burdens by streamlining the process, disincentivize future unlawful entries, and encourage greater compliance with removal and voluntary departure orders.
This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in section 101(a)(17) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) or any other function performed by the United States Federal Government with respect to aliens. See OMB Memorandum M-25-20, Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” at 5-6 (Mar. 26, 2025).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking. This IFR is exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this rule.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974,
Additionally,
This IFR would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This IFR is not a “rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, Public Law 104-121.
DHS and its components analyze final actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. 4321
NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment (“EA”) or environmental impact statement (“EIS”). An agency is not required to prepare an EA or EIS for a proposed action “if the proposed agency action is excluded pursuant to one of the agency's categorical exclusions.” 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2). The Instruction Manual, Appendix A, lists the DHS Categorical Exclusions. For an action to be categorically excluded under DHS's Instruction Manual, the action must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) the entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
This IFR is categorically excluded from DHS's NEPA implementing procedures, because it satisfies all three relevant conditions. First, the Departments have determined that the IFR fits clearly within categorical exclusions A3(a) of DHS's Instruction Manual, Appendix A, for the promulgation of rules of a “strictly administrative or procedural nature.” This IFR merely changes the procedures that DHS and DOJ apply when assessing civil monetary penalties authorized under certain sections of the INA. This change in procedures does not result in a change in their environmental effect. Second, this IFR is a standalone rule and is not part of any larger action. Third, the Departments are not aware of any extraordinary circumstances that would cause a significant environmental impact. Therefore, this IFR is categorically excluded, and no further NEPA analysis or documentation is required.
This IFR would 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the Departments believe that this IFR would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This IFR does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements or call for a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal services, Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration, Penalties.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Secretary of Homeland Security amends 8 CFR chapter I subchapter B as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1103, 1221, 1223, 1227, 1229, 1229c, 1253, 1322, 1323, 1325, 1324d, 1330; 5 U.S.C. 301; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 101
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(i) That the alien has a right to an appeal and that a written notice of appeal must be postmarked within 15 business days from the date of service of the immigration officer's decision;
(ii) That any written notice of appeal must be submitted to the Department in accordance with the filing instructions provided in the decision and at the address specified in the decision;
(iii) That if the alien elects to submit a written defense or documentary evidence or both in connection with an appeal, the alien shall file these materials with the notice of appeal;
(iv) That the alien may be represented by counsel of his or her choice at no expense to the United States Government; and
(v) That if the alien does not file a timely written notice of appeal, the immigration officer's decision and order will become final, and the alien will be liable for the assessed civil penalty.
(d)
(e)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(f)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(g)
(h)
(1) A Notice of Intention to Fine under 8 CFR part 280 was issued prior to June 27, 2025; and
(2) That Notice of Intention to Fine was issued under sections 240B(d), 274D(a), or 275(b) of the Act.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble and by the authority vested in the Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, by the Attorney General Order Number 6260-2025, the Department of Justice amends 8 CFR parts 1003 and 1280 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231,
(b) * * *
(4) Decisions involving administrative fines and penalties, including mitigation thereof, as provided in part 280 of this chapter, except that appeals of decisions imposing any penalty under sections 240B(d), 274D(a)(1), or 275(b) of the Act may not be filed with the Board unless the conditions described in 8 CFR 281.1(h) are met.
8 U.S.C. 1103, 1221, 1223, 1227, 1229, 1253, 1281, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1322, 1323, 1330; 66 Stat. 173, 195, 197, 201, 203, 212, 219, 221-223, 226, 227, 230; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321.
(b)
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule; approval of amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are approving an amendment to the Pennsylvania regulatory program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The amendment proposes to revise the Pennsylvania program to comply with four required amendments and to correct a provision we previously disapproved. The proposed amendment also includes revisions to Pennsylvania's program, including effluent limitations for bituminous underground coal mines, temporary cessation, the definition of Surface Mining Activities, civil penalties, and administrative requirements, as well as other administrative updates and non-substantive corrections.
Effective July 28, 2025.
Thomas J. Koptchak, Field Office Director, Pittsburgh Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220; Telephone: (202) 513-7685; Fax: (412) 937-2177; Email:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its approved State program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations.
By letter dated March 16, 2020, (Administrative Record No. PA 906.00), Pennsylvania sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the December 17, 2020,
After reviewing the proposed amendment, SMCRA, and the Federal regulations, including 30 CFR 938.12, 938.16, 730.5, 732.15, and 732.17, we are approving the amendment as described below. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concerning non-substantive wording, editorial changes, or renumbering of citations are approved here without discussion.
1.
This required amendment concerns the valuation of collateral bonds. On December 22, 1989, Pennsylvania submitted several proposed amendments that included a proposed restructuring of 25 Pa. Code 86.158.
2.
As part of the proposed restructuring of 25 Pa. Code 86.158, Pennsylvania previously proposed to add new subsection 25 Pa. Code 86.158(b)(2), which required the current market value of collateral bonds pledging negotiable securities to be at least equal to the amount of the required bond amount.
While similar, the prior proposed version of 25 Pa. Code 86.158(b)(2) did not consider those factors that may affect the overall value of the posted collateral. As a result, the cash value of a security could be reduced to below the bond value. We approved the prior revision, except to the extent that the value of the collateral bond could equal the overall bond value without taking into consideration the effects of depreciation, marketability, and other factors on the amount of cash available from the bond.
3.
This required amendment concerns the revaluation of securities to be conducted during the permit renewal process in assurance that the bond value of all collateral bonds is adequate to satisfy the bond amount requirements for the facility. As part of the proposed restructuring of 25 Pa. Code 86.158, Pennsylvania previously proposed to add a new subsection at 25 Pa. Code 86.158(b)(3), which allowed the regulatory authority to periodically revalue negotiable government securities and, if necessary, to require additional amounts if the current market value is less than the required bond amount.
The counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.21(e)(2) contain similar provisions for periodical evaluation of the bond value of collateral, but the Federal regulations also stipulate that bonds must be evaluated as part of the regulatory authority's review of a permit renewal application. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.21(e)(2) apply to all collateral bonds and not just those pledging negotiable government securities as contained in the State's rules for collateral bonds under 25 Pa. Code 86.158. We previously found Pennsylvania's proposed revisions to 25 Pa. Code 86.158(b)(3) were no less effective than the cited Federal rules, except to the extent that Pennsylvania law did not require that the bond value of all collateral bonds be evaluated, at a minimum, as part of the permit renewal process.
4.
This required amendment concerns the revision of the definition of “haul roads” and the clarification of the areas of inclusion. The requirement amendment codified at 30 CFR 938.16(mmm) required Pennsylvania to amend 25 Pa. Code 88.1 or otherwise amend its program by requiring the definition of “haul roads” to be expanded.
Pennsylvania had previously proposed to revise the definition of “haul roads” as it appears in the definitions section pertaining to anthracite region mining at 25 Pa. Code 88.1.
The proposed amended definitions for “Haul road” and “Road” at 25 Pa. Code 88.1 provide the changes that we required in April 8, 1993 (58 FR 18156). Accordingly, we find that the amendment to 25 Pa. Code 88.1 satisfies the requirements of 30 CFR 938.16(mmm), is no less stringent than the Federal regulations, is consistent with SMCRA, and can be approved. Therefore, the required program amendment codified in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 938.16(mmm) can be removed and reserved.
5.
As part of a prior amendment submission, Pennsylvania proposed to revise 25 Pa. Code 86.151(d) to add the following language: “[a]ugmented seeding, fertilization, irrigation and repair of rill and gullies performed at levels or degrees of management which exceed those normally applied in maintaining use or productivity of comparable unmined land in die surrounding area, would necessitate extending the period of liability.”
The amendment was intended to clarify the extent to which approved husbandry practices may occur without extending the bond liability period.
6.
Pennsylvania currently lists effluent limitations for bituminous underground mines at 25 Pa. Code 89.52 (relating to water quality standards, effluent limitations, and best management practices). 25 Pa. Code 89.52(f)(2) includes alternative effluent limitations for underground mine discharges that can be adequately treated using passive treatment technology. However, the Federal effluent limit guidelines at 40 CFR part 434 (relating to coal mining point source category best practicable control technology currently available (BPT) limitations, best available technology economically achievable (BAT) limitations, best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) limitations, and new source performance standards (NSPS)) do not provide alternative limits for passive treatment systems applicable to underground mines.
Sections 515(b)(10) and 516(b)(9) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(10), 30 U.S.C. 1266(b)(9)), and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.41 and 817.41 (Hydrologic-balance protection for surface mining and underground mining respectively), require that surface coal mining and reclamation operations must be conducted to minimize disturbance to the prevailing hydrologic balance and to the quantity and quality of water in surface water and groundwater systems, both during and after mining and during reclamation. When water treatment is unavoidable, the regulations at 30 CFR 816.42 and 817.42 specify that discharges must be made in compliance with applicable State and Federal water quality laws, regulations, and effluent limitations. These effluent limits and water quality standards include all applicable State and Federal water quality laws and regulations, including the effluent limitation guidelines and standards for coal mining as promulgated by EPA and set forth in 40 CFR part 434.
OSMRE regulations once included effluent limitation guidelines and standards for surface coal mining and reclamation operations, but these
7.
Pennsylvania has proposed revisions to 25 Pa. Code 87.157, 88.131, and 88.219 relating to temporary cessation of operations of bituminous surface mines. Pennsylvania's rules previously specified a 90-day limit on the amount of time that an operation can be in temporary cessation status, which could be extended to 180 days by PADEP. Pennsylvania has proposed to delete these limits at 25 Pa. Code 87.157, 88.131, and 88.219 to match the lack of such limits in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.131(b). Pennsylvania has also proposed to amend these subsections to include provisions triggering information requirements from operators when temporary status ends due to reactivation or termination through the permittee's failure to comply with the law, regulations, or the permit. The proposal also includes the requirement for the permittee to submit timely renewal applications when applicable.
The Federal regulations addressing temporary cessation at 30 CFR 816.131 state that, before temporary cessation of mining and reclamation operations for a period of thirty days or more, or as soon as it is known that a temporary cessation will extend beyond 30 days, the operator must submit to the regulator a notice of intention to cease or abandon mining and reclamation operations. This notice must include a statement of the exact number of acres that will have been affected in the permit area prior to such temporary cessation, the extent and kind of reclamation of those areas that will have been accomplished, and identification of the backfilling, regrading, revegetation, environmental monitoring, and water treatment activities that will continue during the temporary cessation.
Pennsylvania has proposed to add additional protective provisions not required by the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.131, including the requirement for submission of certain information following on resumption of coal extraction, that temporary cessation status will terminate on a finding of failure to comply with Pennsylvania mining laws or the approved permit, and that temporary cessation does not relieve the operator of the obligation to submit an application for permit renewal at least 180 days before the expiration of the existing permit.
We find that Pennsylvania's proposed changes are in accordance with SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal regulations. We find that that Pennsylvania's removal of the 90-day and 180-day upper time limits for temporary cessation status at 25 Pa. Code 87.157, 88.131, and 88.219 are no less stringent than 30 CFR 816.131, which contains no such limits. Therefore, we approve the changes.
8.
Pennsylvania has proposed to replace the prior definition for “surface mining activities” as it appeared at 25 Pa. Code 86.1 and 87.1. The prior definition included a lengthy description of surface mining activities, which included certain enumerated activities incident to the extraction of coal. This definition has been the subject of review and comment about whether one or other activity incident to coal extraction fell within the definition.
Rather than continuously amending the definition of “surface mining activities” as the law develops, Pennsylvania has proposed to adopt the definition for “surface coal mining activities” as it appears in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 701.5 define “surface mining activities” as “those surface coal mining and reclamation operations incident to the extraction of coal from the earth by removing the materials over a coal seam, before recovering the coal, by auger coal mining, or by recovery of coal from a deposit that is not in its original geologic location.”
9.
Pennsylvania has proposed to revise its civil penalty requirements at 25 Pa. Code 86.193(b) and (c). Currently, these regulations require PADEP to assess a civil penalty if the penalty is calculated at $1,100 or more but provides that
30 CFR 723.12(b) requires that a penalty must be assessed for each notice of violation if the violation is assigned 31 points or more under the point system described in 30 CFR 723.13. 30 CFR 723.12(c) allows that a penalty may be assessed for each notice of violation assigned 30 points or less under the point system described in 30 CFR 723.13. In determining whether to assess a penalty, the assessor will consider the factors listed in 723.13(b).
However, the civil penalty regulations at 30 CFR 723.12 and 723.14 are substantively identical to those that appear at 30 CFR 845.12 and 845.14, and both have been updated at the same time. As such, even though Pennsylvania's proposed rules continue to reference the interim program regulations, these regulations are no less stringent than the correct permanent program regulations appearing at 30 CFR part 845. Because the two sections are substantively identical, this error does not make the Pennsylvania law less effective than the Federal regulations or inconsistent with SMCRA. However, we recommend that Pennsylvania correct these references in the future to avoid the possibility that the referenced portions of Part 723 and Part 845 become substantively distinct via future amendments.
Given that the proposed changes to 25 Pa. Code 86.193(b) and (c) do not include deletion of the reference to 25 Pa. Code 86.194, which specifies its own schedule and criteria for penalties without reference to a points schedule, it appears that Pennsylvania only wishes to set the threshold for a mandatory penalty assessment at the Federal rate rather than require penalty assessors in Pennsylvania assess the actual penalty with the schedule provided at 30 CFR 723.14. Under the current Federal penalty schedule, this change would effectively more than triple Pennsylvania's $1,100 mandatory penalty assessment threshold, as the current schedule at 30 CFR 723.14 sets the dollar amount owed for 31 points at $4,499.
Because the proposed amendments to Pennsylvania's penalty assessment threshold at 25 Pa. Code 86.193(b) and (c) are in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with those set in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 723.12, 723.14, 845.12, and 845.14, we approve the proposed changes.
10.
Pennsylvania is proposing revisions to their remining financial guarantees provisions at 25 Pa. Code 86.281. These largely provide PADEP with more discretion to apply this incentive on a broader, program-wide basis, rather than applying amounts provided for reclamation costs on a per-permit basis.
25 Pa. Code 86.281 through 86.284 were added by Pennsylvania as part of an effort to provide incentives for active coal mine operators to conduct remining and reclamation of abandoned mine lands and bond forfeiture sites by assisting the operators in meeting their obligation to bond these activities. These regulations established a Remining Financial Assurance Fund to financially assure bonding obligations for an operator engaged in remining, providing the requirements for an operator's participation, the limits of use of the fund, and the procedures to be followed in the event of bond forfeiture. Under this incentives program, PADEP reserves a portion of the financial guarantees special account in the Remining Financial Assurance Fund as collateral for reclamation obligations on the remining area. We previously found that this remining incentive was consistent with the provisions of SMCRA, and that the basic Pennsylvania program requirement to secure a bond for surface and underground coal mining operations had not been altered by this incentive.
At 25 Pa. Code 86.281(b), Pennsylvania has proposed to require that the amount of an individual remining financial guarantee will be the estimated cost for PADEP to reclaim the remining area, subject to the limitations established at 25 Pa. Code 86.281(d). Pennsylvania has proposed to remove, at 25 Pa. Code 86.281(c), the requirement that PADEP designate a specified amount of the financial guarantees special account in the Remining Financial Assurance Fund to financially assure reclamation obligations on the permits with an approved remining area. Previously, this subsection was tied to each individual permit and fixed the specific amount designated at the estimated cost for PADEP to reclaim the remining area. This change is meant to allow PADEP to have flexibility to assign amounts at the program level rather than the individual permit level. Pennsylvania has also proposed to add references at 25 Pa. Code 86.281(d) identifying the designated amount when describing the permit limit, the operator limit, and the program limit of the special account. Finally, Pennsylvania proposes to add 25 Pa. Code 86.281(f) to describe a reserve for the account which provides funds to pay for costs incurred when the financial guarantee program is used for land reclamation.
25 Pa. Code 86.282 provides requirements for operators who wish to participate in the remining financial guarantees program, providing four subsections containing prerequisites for participation. One of these prerequisites, at 25 Pa. Code 86.282(a)(4), allows a qualified operator to participate in the fund when they have previously participated in the remining financial guarantee program, met its reclamation obligations, and made timely payments.
Pennsylvania has proposed to add to the end of the subsection a provision requiring that an operator will be eligible under this subsection if it has not been cited through a notice of violation under 25 Pa Code 86.165(a) (relating to failure to maintain proper bond) within the previous three years prior to the request for a remining financial guarantee. This is clearly meant as an effort to not permanently exclude involvement of an operator who once had a missing or late payment, after a sufficient time has passed.
Pennsylvania has proposed revisions to 25 Pa. Code 86.284(d), which describes the consequences when a remining financial guarantee program participant's bond is forfeited. 25 Pa. Code 86.254(d) requires that on bond forfeiture of a financial guarantees program participant, PADEP will discontinue the program immediately and publish a notice in the
11.
25 Pa. Code 90.201 provides definitions applicable to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 90 (Coal Refuse Disposal). The existing definition for “preferred site” included various types of watersheds impacted by mining, unreclaimed coal refuse disposal piles, or other unreclaimed areas previously affected by mining activities. Pennsylvania has proposed to add to the end of this list “or an area adjacent to or an expansion of an existing coal refuse disposal site.”
Section 4.1(a) of Pennsylvania's Coal Refuse Disposal Control Act (CRDCA) (52 P.S. 30.54a(a)) provides site selection criteria for determining where to place coal refuse following mining activities. The CRDCA provided that areas that have been previously affected by mining activities within a specific area of the source mine are preferred for coal refuse disposal unless the applicant demonstrates that another site is more suitable based on site-specific conditions. Pennsylvania provided a definition of “preferred sites” at Section 4.1(a), 52 P.S. 30.54a(a) of the CRDCA that includes “an area adjacent to or an expansion of an existing coal refuse disposal site.”
We find that the proposed revision to 25 Pa. Code 90.201 reflects the statutory language that we previously approved on October 19, 2015. While there are no direct Federal counterparts to the proposed site selection criterion, by providing this criterion, and by prohibiting, generally, coal refuse disposal operations on non-preferred sites, Pennsylvania imposes a more stringent environmental control of coal refuse disposal operations than is provided in either SMCRA or its implementing regulations. Moreover, Pennsylvania will continue to apply the Pennsylvania counterparts to the Federal permitting and performance standard requirements. Because the revised regulation is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations, we are approving the revision.
12.
Pennsylvania has proposed to revise 25 Pa. Code 86.31 relating to public notices of filing of permit applications. Previously, 25 Pa. Code 86.31(c)(1) required notification by registered mail to the municipality where mining is proposed.
The Federal requirement at 30 CFR 773.6(a)(3) (relating to public participation in permit processing) requires that the regulatory authority will issue a written notification indicating the applicant's intention to mine the described tract of land, the application number or other identifier, the location where the copy of the application may be inspected, and the location where comments on the application may be submitted.
13.
Pennsylvania has proposed revisions to 25 Pa. Code 87.103, 88.93, 88.188, 88.293, and 89.53, each containing a table of data representing the amount of precipitation for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event on a county-by-county basis. 25 Pa. Code 90.103 includes tables of similar data representing the 1-year and 10-year rainfall events. Pennsylvania's submission letter states that the tables were created using climatological data available in the early 1980s, at which time data was available for only a limited number of stations in each county.
Pennsylvania's submission makes it clear that it seeks to replace these data tables with data from the Precipitation Frequency Data Server (PFDS) developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which provides data from NOAA Atlas 14. NOAA Atlas 14 contains precipitation frequency estimates for the United States and U.S. affiliated territories with associated lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval and supplementary information on temporal distribution of heavy precipitation, and analysis of seasonality and trends in annual maximum series data. Pennsylvania's incorporation of these data is meant to bring the storm event tables up to date.
14.
Pennsylvania has proposed to amend 25 Pa. Code 87.102, 88.92, 88.187, 88.292, 89.52, and 90.102 to incorporate a reference to the Environmental Quality Board's Chapter 96, which became effective November 18, 2000 (30 Pa.B 6059). Chapter 96 establishes the process for attaining and maintaining water quality standards and cross-references in each of the identified sections.
15.
Pennsylvania has proposed to replace the use of the term “fly ash” with “coal ash,” and the term “sewage sludge” with “biosolids or residential septage” as those terms appear in 25 Pa. Code 86.54(1)(iii) and 87.100(d) respectively.
Neither SMCRA nor the Federal regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act define these terms. Accordingly, we find that Pennsylvania's replacement of the terms “fly ash” and “sewage sludge” with “coal ash” and “biosolids” is consistent with the Federal regulations and in accordance with SMCRA. Therefore, we are approving the changes.
16.
Pennsylvania has proposed to amend 25 Pa. Code 86.162 to delete the word “deep” from section 86.162(a) as clarification that other sorts of mine operations, in addition to deep mines, are eligible for participation in the Anthracite Mine Operators Emergency Bond Fund. In 1992, PASMCRA section 4.7 (52 P.S. 1396.4g) was revised to allow anthracite surface mining operators to participate. This proposed amendment is meant to bring Pennsylvania regulations into conformity with 52 P.S. 1396.4g.
We asked for public comments on the amendment and received one comment, but that comment was completely unrelated to the subject matter of this amendment.
On March 18, 2020, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Pennsylvania program. We did not receive any comments.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On March 18, 2020, we requested comments on Pennsylvania amendment. Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded to our request.
Based on the above findings, we are approving Pennsylvania's program amendment sent to us on March 16, 2020 (Administrative Record No. PA 906.00). To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 938, that codify decisions concerning the Pennsylvania program. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication.
This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications that would result in public property being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993 (OMB Memo M-94-3), the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption.
The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The Department has determined that this
This rule has potential Federalism implications, as defined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 13132 directs agencies to “grant the States the maximum administrative discretion possible” with respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by the States. Pennsylvania, through its approved regulatory program, implements and administers SMCRA and its implementing regulations at the State level. This rule approves an amendment to the Pennsylvania program submitted and drafted by the State, and thus is consistent with the direction to provide maximum administrative discretion to States.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Tribes. The basis for this determination is that our decision on the Pennsylvania program does not include Indian lands as defined by SMCRA or other Tribal lands, and it does not affect the regulation of activities on Indian lands or other Tribal lands. Indian lands under SMCRA are regulated independently under the applicable Federal Indian lands program. The Department's consultation policy also acknowledges that our rules may have Tribal implications where the State proposing the amendment encompasses ancestral lands in areas with mineable coal. We are currently working to identify and engage appropriate Tribal stakeholders to devise a constructive approach for consulting on these amendments.
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Consistent with sections 501(a) and 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1251(a) and 1292(d), respectively) and the U.S. Department of the Interior Departmental Manual, part 516, section 13.5(A), State program amendments are not major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
This rule does not include requests and requirements of an individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and report it to a federal agency. As this rule does not contain information collection requirements, a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule will not have a significant economic impact 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), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (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 determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to constitute a major rule.
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. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 938 is amended as set forth below:
30 U.S.C. 1201
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 450 feet radius of the Solstice Steps in Lakewood, OH on Lake Erie on July 4, 2025 for the Lakewood Independence Day fireworks. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel and vessels from potential hazards created by the firework show. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Eastern Great Lakes or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2025.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email MST1 Andrew Nevenner, Waterways Management Division, MSU Cleveland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-937-0111, 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 because delaying the issuance of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants in these navigable waters before, during, and after the firework show. We must establish a safety zone by July 4, 2025 and lacked sufficient notice of the need for the safety zone to issue a proposed rule. For that reason, issuing an NPRM is also impracticable.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port has determined that potential hazards associated with the firework show on July 4, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 450-feet radius of the launch area. This rule is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the show is occurring.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 450 feet of the firework launch area. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel and vessels in these navigable waters while the bridge is being repaired. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
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 size, location, and duration of the rule. This safety zone will restrict navigation in Lake Erie through the area adjacent to the Solstice Steps in Lakewood, OH.
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
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 safety zone that will prohibit entry in, out or through the navigable waters of Lake Erie adjacent to the Solstice Steps, located on Lake Erie in Lakewood, OH. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels designated or assigned by the Captain of the Port Sector Eastern Great Lakes, to patrol the event.
(3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer and will be operated at a no wake speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft.
(4) No spectator shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
(5) The Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, 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.
(6) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated areas specified in this chapter, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel.
(7) The Patrol Commander may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(8) The Patrol Commander will terminate enforcement of the special regulations at the conclusion of the event.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones established for annual firework displays in the Captain of the Port, Sector Puget Sound area of responsibility to ensure the safety of life on navigable waters during these events. The Coast Guard's regulation for marine events within the Thirteenth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for these events. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with lawful directions form the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1332 will be enforced for the safety zones identified in the
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email LT Anthony Pinto, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6051, or
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones established in 33 CFR 165.1332 for the Annual Fireworks Displays within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area
The special requirements listed in 33 CFR 165.1332(b) apply to the activation and enforcement of these safety zones. While the safety zone is activated, all non-participant vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or their designated representative, as set forth in 33 CFR 165.1332(d). The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
The Coast Guard will issue advanced notification of enforcement of these safety zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the regulatory materials that are incorporated by reference into the Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EPA is also notifying the public of corrections and clarifying changes in the Code of Federal Regulations tables that identify the regulatory materials incorporated by reference into the Idaho SIP. This update affects the materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the EPA Region 10 Office.
This action is effective June 27, 2025.
The Idaho SIP materials incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101; and
Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-6357, or
Each State has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, including such elements as air pollution control regulations, source-specific permit requirements, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.
Each State must formally adopt air pollution control measures and strategies and submit the associated regulatory materials to the EPA for approval into the SIP. Upon EPA approval, regulatory materials are incorporated into the federally approved SIP in title 40 of part 52, “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The full text of a State regulation approved by the EPA is not reproduced in its entirety in 40 CFR part 52, rather, it is “incorporated by reference (IBR).” This means that the EPA has approved a given State regulation, or changes to that regulation, based on a specific effective date. The public is referred to the location of the full text version of the regulation. The information provided allows the EPA and the public to monitor the extent to which a State implements a SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS and to take enforcement action for violations of the SIP.
Each SIP is a living document revised as necessary by a State to address Clean Air Act requirements and the unique air
On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), the EPA, in coordination with the Office of the Federal Register, revised the procedures used to incorporate State regulatory materials by reference into the CFR for each SIP. These changes revised the format for the identification of the SIP in 40 CFR part 52, streamlined the mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to a SIP, and consolidated the process for EPA updates to the IBR materials in 40 CFR part 52. The revised IBR procedures called for the EPA to maintain “SIP Compilations” with the full text of the federally approved State regulatory materials.
The EPA generally updates each SIP Compilation every few years, or more frequently when large amounts of regulatory materials have been incorporated by reference. Under the revised procedures, the EPA must periodically publish an informational document in the rules section of the
Since the last update of IBR materials in the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(c), the EPA has approved and incorporated by reference specific revised sections of the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01) as described in the following paragraphs of this preamble.
1. Action on December 5, 2024 (89 FR 96554) (listed provisions are State effective March 28, 2023, unless otherwise specified):
• IDAPA 58.01.01.001 Title and scope (describing the title and general scope);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.005 Definitions (referencing the terms defined in State statute and Federal regulations to be used in the Idaho air quality regulations);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General definitions (defining centralized terms used in the Idaho air quality regulations), except 006.23, 006.24, 006.25, 006.30, 006.31.b, 006.49, 006.50 and 006.51;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.007 Definitions for the purposes of sections 200 through 228 and 400 through 461 (defining centralized terms used in the major and minor source permitting programs);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.107 Incorporations by reference (listing the codes, rules and standards incorporated by reference into the Idaho air quality regulations), State effective July 1, 2014, except 107.06 through 107.16, which are not incorporated into the SIP;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.108 Obligation to comply (requiring that receiving a permit or certificate of registration does not relieve the owner or operation of the obligation to comply with all applicable regulations);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.121 Compliance requirements by department (detailing actions to ensure compliance with the air quality rules);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.122 Information orders by the department (establishing how information may be obtained in implementing the air quality rules);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.123 Certification of documents (requiring documents submitted to be certified as true, accurate and complete);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.125 False statements (prohibiting false statements, representation, or certification);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.126 Tampering (prohibiting interference with monitoring device, method, rule or order);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.130 Startup, shutdown, scheduled maintenance, safety measures, upset and breakdown (defining startup, shutdown, upset and scheduled maintenance), State effective July 1, 2024;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.131 Excess emissions (establishing enforcement discretion criteria in the event of excess emissions);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.132 Correction of condition (requiring appropriate action to correct conditions causing an excess emissions event);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.133 Startup, shutdown and scheduled maintenance requirements (prescribing notifications, recordkeeping, reporting and other actions related to modes of operation);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.134 Upset, breakdown and safety requirements (identifying safety requirements and measures to minimize excess emissions during upsets);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.135 Excess emissions reports (detailing required data to be reported about excess emissions events);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.136 Excess emissions records (requiring records retention related to excess emissions);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.155 Circumvention (prohibiting the concealment of emissions);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.157 Test methods and procedures (establishing procedures for source test methods);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.164 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (prohibiting the burning or selling of PCBs);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.175 Procedures and requirements for permits establishing a facility emissions cap (setting uniform procedures for a source to seek a facility emissions cap);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.176 Facility emissions cap, except provisions relating to hazardous air pollutants (establishing applicability and definitions for facility emissions cap requirements);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.178 Standard contents of permits establishing a facility emissions cap (listing the required contents of a permit establishing a facility emissions cap);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.179 Procedures for issuing permits establishing a facility emissions cap (identifying the procedures to be followed in issuing a facility emissions cap);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.180 Revisions to permits establishing a facility emissions cap (requiring changes to permit terms and conditions under certain circumstances);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.181 Notice and record-keeping of estimates of ambient concentrations (prescribing the process to make allowable changes to a facility emissions cap);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.200 Procedures and requirements for permits to construct (establishing uniform procedures for issuing permits to construct);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to construct required (requiring owners and operators of certain facilities to obtain permits to construct unless otherwise covered by a general permit or permit by rule);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.202 Application procedures (requiring a certified application using approved forms when applying for a permit to construct);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.203 Permit requirements for new and modified stationary sources, except 203.03 (stating that no permit will be issued unless a source complies with applicable emission limits and does not cause or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.204 Permit requirements for new major facilities or major modifications in nonattainment areas (requiring LAER and offsets for new major facilities and major modifications in nonattainment areas);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.205 Permit requirements for new major facilities or major modifications in attainment or unclassifiable areas (requiring new major facilities and major modifications meet certain requirements to construct in attainment areas);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.206 Optional offsets for permits to construct (offering the option to offset emissions using credits);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.208 Demonstration of net air quality benefit (establishing how to demonstrate net air quality benefit for emissions trades);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.209 Procedure for issuing permits (laying out application, public process and approval procedures for issuing permits);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.211 Conditions for permits to construct (conditioning permits to include monitoring, performance testing, cancellation);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.212 Relaxation of standards or restrictions (spelling out major preconstruction permitting requirements when a limit has been relaxed);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.213 Pre-permit construction (specifying when certain minor sources may request to construct before obtaining the permit);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.220 General exemption criteria for permit to construct exemptions (detailing exemptions from the requirements to obtain a permit to construct);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.221 Category I exemption (specifying exemptions for sources below regulatory concern);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.222 Category II exemption (detailing exemptions for sources such as laboratory equipment, pilot plants, mobile engines, retail gasoline facilities, etc.);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.226 Payment of fees for permits to construct (requiring application and processing fee payment for permits to construct);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.227 Receipt and usage of fees (requiring received fees to be used to administer the permit to construct and Tier II operating permit programs)
• IDAPA 58.01.01.400 Procedures and requirements for Tier II operating permits (stating the purpose of the Tier II operating permit rules);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier II operating permit, except 401.01.a and 401.04 (laying out optional and required Tier II operating permits);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.402 Application procedures (laying out how to apply for a Tier II operating permit);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.403 Permit requirements for Tier II sources (requiring that no permit be issued unless it would include all applicable emission limits and ambient air quality standards);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.404 Procedure for issuing permits (general procedures for issuing Tier II permits);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.405 Conditions for Tier II operating permits (laying out permit terms, performance test requirements, and other conditions);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.460 Requirements for emission reduction credit (establishing the conditions that constitute a creditable emission reduction);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.461 Requirements for banking emission reduction credits (ERC's) (setting out how emission reduction credits may be banked);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.500 Registration procedures and requirements for portable equipment (requiring all portable equipment to be registered);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.510 Stack heights and dispersion techniques (establishing criteria for good engineering practice related to stack heights and dispersion techniques);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.511 Requirements (providing that the required degree of emission control must not be affected by the amount of stack height that exceeds good engineering practices);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.512 Opportunity for public hearing (providing an opportunity for a public hearing where a stack height would exceed good engineering practices);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.513 Approval of field studies and fluid models (requiring approval of field studies and fluid models by the EPA);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.514 No restriction on actual stack height (providing that these rules do not restrict actual stack height);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.550 Air quality episodes (defining requirements in the event of episodes of poor air quality);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.556 Criteria for declaring air quality episodes (identifying alert, warning and emergency episode stages);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.557 Requirements during air quality episodes (prescribing actions to be taken during air quality episode stages);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.558 Notification of air quality episode (defining what information will be provided to the public in the event of an air quality episode);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.562 Specific air quality episode abatement plans for stationary sources (requiring specific sources to adopt and implement their own abatement plans in the event of an air quality episode);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.579 Baselines for prevention of significant deterioration (establishing the baseline dates to be used in the PSD permitting program);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.580 Classification of prevention of significant deterioration areas (listing procedures for redesignating PSD areas);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.581 Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increments (establishing the allowable degree of deterioration for areas that have air quality better than the ambient standards);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.600 Rules for control of open burning (establishing rule to protect human health and the environment from air pollutants resulting from open burning);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.601 Fire permits, hazardous materials, and liability (stating that a person is not exempt from other laws and ordinances related to open burning);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.602 Nonpreemption of other jurisdiction (stating that these rules are not intended to interfere with the rights of other agencies to provide equal or more stringent open burning controls);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.603 General requirements (prescribing the general open burning restrictions);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.606 Categories of allowable burning (listing the categories of allowable open burning);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.607 Recreational and warming fires (describing the campfires, barbeques, ceremonial fires and small handwarming fires that are allowed);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.608 Weed control fires (describing the weed abatement fires that are allowed);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.609 Training fires (describing the fire and land management training fires that are allowed);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.611 Residential yard waste fires (describing the yard waste disposal fires that are allowed);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.612 Solid waste facility fires (describing when solid waste disposal fires may be allowed);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.613 Orchard fires (describing orchard clipping disposal fires that are allowed);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.614 Prescribed fires (describing the prescribed fire that may be allowed under certain conditions);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.615 Dangerous material fires (describing allowable fires ignited under the direction of a public or military fire chief to dispose of dangerous materials);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.616 Infectious waste burning (describing allowable infectious waste fires conducted under the direction of a public health officer);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.617 Crop residue disposal (establishing requirements for crop residue disposal fires);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.618 Permit by rule (requiring that no person may conduct an open burn of crop residue without the applicable permit by rule);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.619 Registration (establishing registration requirements for crop residue burn permit by rule);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.620 Burn fee (setting fee payment deadline for crop residue burns);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.621 Burn approval (establishing the criteria for crop residue burn approval);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.622 General provisions (listing the requirements for persons conducting crop residue burns);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.623 Public notification (indicating that the Idaho DEQ will notify the public of burn or no-burn days);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.624 Spot and baled crop residue burn and propane flaming requirements (detailing the requirements for spot burns, baled burns and propane flaming);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.625 Visible emissions (establishing opacity limits and test methods);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.650 Rules for control of fugitive dust (requiring that all reasonable precautions be taken to prevent fugitive dust);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.651 General rules (establishing general requirements to limit the generation of fugitive dust);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.665 Regional haze rules (addressing visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.666 Reasonable Progress goals (establishing goals for reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.667 Long-term strategy for regional haze (establishing long-term strategy requirements);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.675 Fuel burning equipment—particulate matter (establishing particulate matter standards for fuel burning equipment);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.676 Standards for new sources (setting particulate limits for new fuel burning equipment);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.677 Standards for minor and existing sources (setting particulate limits for minor and existing fuel burning equipment);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.678 Combinations of fuels (addressing particulate limits when two or more types of fuel are burned concurrently);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.679 Averaging period (establishing the appropriate averaging period for determining particulate emissions from fuel burning equipment);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.680 Altitude correction (addressing how to correct standard conditions for the altitude of a source);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.681 Test methods and procedures (setting the appropriate test method for measuring fuel burning particulate emissions);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.700 Particulate matter—process weight limitations (establishing particulate matter emission limitations for process equipment);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.701 Particulate matter—new equipment process weight limitations (listing emission standards for new process equipment);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.702 Particulate matter—existing equipment process weight limitations (listing emission standards for existing process equipment);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.703 Particulate matter—other processes (establishing process weight limitations for equipment used to dehydrate sugar beet pulp or alfalfa);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for sulfur content of fuels (establishing limits on the sulfur content of fuels);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.791 General control requirements (prohibiting owners and operators of rock crushers from injuring human health, welfare, property and other requirements);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.793 Emissions standards for nonmetallic mineral processing plants not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO (requiring compliance with emissions and opacity standards);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.794 Permit requirements, except 794.04 (setting rock crusher permit by rule eligibility);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.795 Permit by rule requirements (establishing rock crusher permit by rule requirements);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.796 Applicability (establishing permit by rule and permit applicability);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.797 Registration for permit by rule (identifying how to register for the rock crusher permit by rule);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.798 Electrical generators (listing the fuel and operation requirements for electrical generators used to provide power to rock crushers);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.799 Nonmetallic mineral processing plant fugitive dust best management practice (establishing best practices to limit fugitive dust);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.815 Rules for control of kraft pulp mills (establishing emission standards and reporting requirements for recovery furnaces at kraft pulp mills);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.818 Kraft pulp mill LVHC and HVLC gas venting notification and reporting (requiring excess emissions notification and reporting by subject sources); and
• Idaho Code 39.103 Definitions, State effective July 1, 2010, except (4), (5), (8), (9), (10), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), and (18), which are not incorporated into the SIP.
Since the last IBR update, the EPA removed the following regulations from incorporation by reference in the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(c).
1. Action on December 5, 2024 (89 FR 96554):
• IDAPA 58.01.01.004 Catchlines (stating that catchlines are not to be used to interpret regulations), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.011 Definitions for the purposes of sections 790 through 799, State effective March 15, 2002;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.106 Abbreviations (spelling out the abbreviations used in the Idaho air quality regulations), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.124 Truth, accuracy and completeness of documents (requiring documents submitted to the state to be true, accurate and complete), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.127 Format of responses (requiring documents to be submitted to meet state-specified formatting requirements), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.160 Provisions governing specific activities and conditions (regarding toxic air pollutants and polychlorinated biphenyls), State effective April 5, 2000;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.162 Modifying physical conditions (addressing conditions that affect the dispersion of pollutants), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.163 Source density (addressing situations where a number of sources are located in proximity to each other), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.212 Obligation to comply (requiring compliance with all applicable local, State and Federal statutes, rules, and regulations), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.406 Obligation to comply (requiring compliance with all applicable local, State and Federal
• IDAPA 58.01.01.515 Approval of field studies and fluid models (requiring EPA approval of field studies and fluid models), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.516 No restrictions on actual stack height (addressing actual stack height), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.551 Episode criteria (listing air quality episode criteria), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.552 Stages (defining air quality episode stages), State effective March 15, 2002;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.553 Effects of stages (addressing the effects of reaching episode stages), State effective March 15, 2002;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.559 Manner and frequency of notification (addressing the manner and frequency of episode announcements), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.560 Notification to sources (requiring significant sources be notified), State effective April 11, 2006;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.561 General rules (establishing the general control requirements for each episode stage), State effective April 11, 2006;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.575 Air quality standards and area classification (establishing State ambient air quality standards), State effective April 11, 2006;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.576 General provisions for ambient air quality standards (addressing general standards), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.578 Designation of attainment, unclassifiable, and nonattainment areas (listing steps for state designation of areas), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.610 Industrial flares (addressing industrial flares as open burning), State effective March 21, 2003;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.626 General restrictions on visible emissions from wigwam burners (setting opacity limits for wigwam burners), State effective April 5, 2000;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.668 BART requirements for regional haze (outlining the process of establishing best available retrofit technology requirements for sources), State effective March 30, 2007;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.785 Rules for control of incinerators (establishing incinerator particulate matter limits), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.786 Emission limits (limiting particulate matter emissions from incinerators), State effective April 5, 2000;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.787 Exceptions (exempting wigwam burners from incinerator emission limits), State effective March 23, 1998;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.805 Rules for control of hot mix asphalt plants (limiting particulate matter emissions from hot mix asphalt plants), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.806 Emission limits (requiring compliance with the process weight rate limitations), State effective May 1, 1994;
• IDAPA 58.01.01.807 Multiple stacks (establishing that total emissions from all stacks are to be compared to the emission limit), State effective May 1, 1994; and
• IDAPA 58.01.01.808 Fugitive dust control (requiring fugitive dust control systems), State effective May 1, 1994.
The EPA is notifying the public of corrections and clarifications to the CFR tables that identify the IBR materials in the Idaho SIP. The EPA has made minor wording changes to the “Explanations” column of the tables for consistency. We have also removed the text from the “Explanations” column for entries “600” through “616” because the text referred to a prior EPA approval date of July 11, 2005 that was then removed in response to a court remand. Entries “600” through “616” have been revised and approved numerous times since 2005 and therefore the text referencing the prior July 11, 2005, EPA approval date is obsolete.
In this action, the EPA is notifying the public of an update to the regulatory materials incorporated by reference into the Idaho SIP and federally effective as of January 6, 2025. This update includes regulatory materials submitted by Idaho and approved by the EPA since the last IBR update.
The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make an action effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This administrative action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs, makes corrections and clarifying changes to the tables in the CFR, and makes ministerial changes to the prefatory heading to the tables in the CFR. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment for this administrative action is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification (and corrections) only reflect existing law. Immediate notice of this action in the
In this document, The EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of regulations promulgated by Idaho, previously approved by the EPA and federally effective before January 6, 2025 as described in section I. of this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, The EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
The EPA also believes that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. This is because prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Idaho SIP Compilation previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, the EPA believes judicial review of this action under section 307(b)(1) is not available.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(b)
(2) EPA Region 10 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by the EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State Implementation Plan as of the dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Region 10 EPA Office at 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101. To obtain the material, please call (206) 553-6357. You may inspect the material with an EPA approval date prior to January 6, 2025, for Idaho at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA email
(c)
(d)
(e)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; apportionment of reserves; request for comments.
NMFS apportions amounts of the non-specified reserve to the initial total allowable catch (ITAC) of Bering Sea (BS) Greenland turbot, BS “other rockfish,” BS Pacific ocean perch, and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) “other flatfish.” This action is necessary to allow the fisheries to continue operating. It is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the fishery management plan for the BSAI management area.
Effective June 26, 2025, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time, December 31, 2025. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., Alaska local time, July 11, 2025.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by docket number NOAA-NMFS-2024-0116, by any of the following methods:
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the BSAI Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2025 ITAC of BS Greenland turbot was established as 1,203 metric tons (mt), the 2025 ITAC of BS “other rockfish” was established as 543 mt, the 2025 ITAC of BS Pacific ocean perch was established as 8,603 mt, and the 2025 ITAC of BSAI “other flatfish” was established as 3,825 mt by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(3) the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has reviewed the most current available data and finds that the ITACs for BS Greenland turbot, BS “other rockfish,” BS Pacific ocean perch, and BSAI “other flatfish” need to be supplemented from the non-specified reserve to promote efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources in the BSAI and allow fishing operations to continue.
Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(b)(3), NMFS apportions from the non-specified reserve of groundfish to ITACs in the BSAI management area as follows: 61 mt to BS Greenland turbot, 96 mt to BS “other rockfish,” 1,518 mt to BS Pacific ocean perch, and 1,400 mt to BSAI “other flatfish.” These apportionments are authorized by § 679.20(b)(1)(i) and consistent with § 679.20(a)(3) and do not result in overfishing of any target species because the revised ITACs and total allowable catches (TACs) are equal to or less than the specifications of the acceptable biological catch in the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025).
The harvest specifications for the 2025 ITACs and TACs included in the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI are revised as follows: 1,415 mt for BS Greenland turbot TAC (which reflects the revised ITAC of 1,264 mt and the Community Development Quota reserve allocation of 151 mt), 639 mt for BS “other rockfish,” 10,121 mt for BS Pacific ocean perch, and 5,225 mt for BSAI “other flatfish.”
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the apportionment of the non-specified reserves of groundfish to BS Greenland turbot, BS “other rockfish,” BS Pacific ocean perch, and BSAI “other flatfish.” This action is necessary for the efficient utilization of fishery resources in the BSAI and to allow the fisheries harvesting these groundfish to continue operating. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on catch of BS Greenland turbot, BS “other rockfish,” BS Pacific ocean perch, and BSAI “other flatfish” only became available as of June 13, 2025. Finally, NMFS provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on the proposed 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI that included the amount of proposed non-specified reserves from which NMFS can apportion to any target species that contributed to that reserve (89 FR 96186, December 4, 2024). The final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI explained that, during the fishing year, any amount of the non-specified reserve may be apportioned by NMFS to a target species that contributed to the non-specified reserves consistent with § 679.20(b)(1)(i) (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025).
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Under § 679.20(b)(3)(iii), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of electronic centralized aircraft monitor (ECAM) messages requiring flight control remote module (FCRM) replacement linked to solder structural fatigue. This proposed AD would require replacement of affected parts before exceeding the life limit and would limit the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. 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 11, 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.
Kin Suen Chan, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone: 847-294-7496; 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 Kin Suen Chan, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone: 847-294-7496; email:
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0008, dated January 9, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0008) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The MCAI states occurrences of ECAM messages requiring FCRM replacement have been reported, and further investigation identified an issue linked to solder structural fatigue. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of a flight control actuator, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2025-0008 specifies procedures for replacing affected FCRMs with serviceable FCRMs and testing the serviceable FCRMs. EASA AD 2025-0008 also limits the
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 2025-0008 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 2025-0008 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0008 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 2025-0008 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 2025-0008. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0008 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 35 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by August 11, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of electronic centralized aircraft monitor (ECAM) messages requiring flight control remote module (FCRM) replacement linked to solder structural fatigue. The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential failure of a flight control actuator. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0008, dated January 9, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0008).
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0008 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2025-0008 defines a serviceable part as an “FCRM, eligible for installation in accordance with Airbus instructions, which is not an affected part; or an affected part that has accumulated less than 9 000 flight cycles (FC) and less than 50 000 flight hours (FH) since first installation on any aeroplane (see Note 1 of this AD)”, this AD requires replacing that text with “FCRM, eligible for installation, which is not an affected part; or an affected part that has accumulated less than 9 000 flight cycles (FC) and less than 50 000 flight hours (FH) since first installation on any aeroplane (see Note 1 of this AD)”.
(3) Where EASA AD 2025-0008 specifies to “replace each affected part with a serviceable part, as defined in this AD, in accordance with the instructions of the SB”, this AD requires replacing that text with “replace each affected part with a serviceable part, as defined in this AD and test in accordance with paragraph 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the SB.”
(4) Where EASA AD 2025-0008 specifies “the affected part is replaced as required by paragraph (1) of this AD”, this AD requires replacing that text with “the affected part is replaced with a serviceable part at the applicable time specified in row A of Table 1 of this AD.”
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0008.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0008 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 Kin Suen Chan, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone: 847-294-7496; 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 2025-0008, dated January 9, 2025.
(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 amend the Class D and Class E airspace at Elkhart, IN, and the Class E airspace at Goshen, IN. The geographic coordinates of the Elkhart Municipal Airport, Elkhart, IN, and the Goshen Municipal Airport, Goshen, IN, would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of airspace reviews conducted due to the decommissioning of the Goshen very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. This action will bring the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and supports instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures and operations.
Comments must be received on or before August 11, 2025.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-1275 and Airspace Docket No. 25-AGL-11 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class D airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Elkhart Municipal Airport, Elkhart, IN, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Goshen Municipal Airport, Goshen, IN, to support IFR operations at these airports.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Class D and E airspace is published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, 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
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
Modifying the Class D airspace: (1) to within a 4.7-mile (increased from a 4.3-mile) radius of Elkhart Municipal Airport, Elkhart, IN; (2) updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; (3) increasing the exclusion area around Mishawaka Pilots Club Airport to 1.5 miles (increased from 1 mile); (4) updating the title of the South Bend, Michiana Regional Airport, IN, (previously Michiana, IN) Class C airspace contained within the legal description; and (5) updating the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement”;
Modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft above the surface: (1) to within a 7.2-mile (increased from a 6.8-mile) radius of Elkhart Municipal Airport; (2) adding an extension within 4 miles each side of the 270° bearing of the Elkhart Muni: RWY 27-LOC extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 11.4 miles west of the airport; (3) removing the exclusionary language as it is no longer required; and (4) updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Also, modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft above the surface: (1) to within a 7.9-mile (increased from a 6.8-mile) radius of the Goshen Municipal Airport, Goshen, IN; and (2) updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is the result of airspace reviews conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Goshen VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 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 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL within a 4.7-mile radius of the Elkhart Municipal Airport; excluding that airspace within a 1.5-mile radius of the Mishawaka Pilots Club Airport; and excluding that portion which coincides with the South Bend, Michiana Regional Airport, IN, Class C airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of Elkhart Municipal Airport; and within 4 miles each side of the 270° bearing from the Elkhart Muni: RWY 27-LOC extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 11.4 miles west of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.9-mile radius of Goshen Municipal Airport.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a proposed regulatory amendment to the Wyoming coal program (Wyoming program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). On January 19, 2024, and effective February 20, 2024, OSMRE approved with exceptions an amendment to Wyoming's regulations for coal exploration by drilling (SATS No. WY-050-FOR). In the final rule under “Revisions to Wyoming's Rules That We Are Not Approving,” we listed several provisions containing typographical errors that Wyoming would need to correct through a future program amendment.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m. MDT on July 28, 2025. If requested, we may hold a public hearing or meeting on the amendment on July 22, 2025. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m. MDT on July 14, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by SATS No. WY-055-FOR, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Attn: Jeffrey Fleischman, Field Office Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 100 East B Street, Casper, Wyoming 82602, Telephone: (307) 261-6550, Email:
In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location:
Attn: Brandi O'Brien, Administrator, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land, Quality Division, 200 West 17th Street, Suite 10, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, Telephone: (307) 777-7757, Email:
Jeffrey Fleischman, Field Office Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 100 East B Street, Casper, Wyoming 82602, Telephone: (307) 261-6550, Email:
Subject to OSMRE's oversight, section 503(a) of the Act permits a state to assume primacy for the regulation of
On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Wyoming program on November 26, 1980. You can find background information on the Wyoming program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Wyoming program in the November 26, 1980,
By letter dated June 4, 2021, Wyoming sent us an amendment (Document ID No. OSM-2021-0004; SATS No. WY-050-FOR) to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Between 1978 and 2007, the Wyoming State legislature enacted a number of revisions to its statutes governing coal exploration by drilling. The proposed statutory revisions reflected organizational updates at the Wyoming Land Quality Division, corrected a typographical error, provided more detailed instructions for plugging and sealing drill holes, incorporated provisions for the awarding of attorney fees and other litigation costs, and included more detailed instructions for bond release. In addition to the statutory changes, on March 2, 2016, the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council approved several revisions to chapter 14 of the Land Quality Division Coal Rules and Regulations governing coal exploration by drilling, which were last updated in 1998. Specifically, the rules were updated to include best management practices and standards adopted by the Wyoming State Engineer's Office that conform with accepted practices established by the American Society for Testing and Materials, the American Water Works Association, and the Wyoming DEQ—Water Quality Division regulations. Other revisions included a list of acceptable grout materials, requirements to plug and immediately cap the entire drill hole, additional identification numbers to facilitate inspections, and minor formatting and organizational changes. Accordingly, the State submitted this proposal to OSMRE on its own initiative.
On January 19, 2024, OSMRE approved with exceptions the WY-050-FOR amendment, effective February 20, 2024 (89 FR 3562). In the final rule under “Revisions to Wyoming's Rules That We Are Not Approving,” we noted an inadvertent word-swap in the language proposed for chapter 14, subsection 3(a) addressing reclamation of drill sites and ancillary roads: specifically, the word “location” was used instead of the previously approved word “condition,” rendering the rule illogical. We also noted Wyoming, in referencing its own “Land Quality Division Coal Rules and Regulations” in the language proposed for chapter 14, subsections 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 4(d), omitted the word “Division” and that made the title of these regulations incomplete.
As laid out in the final rule, by letter dated October 24, 2023, we informed Wyoming of these typographical errors and the need to correct them, while offering to delay rulemaking under WY-050-FOR to accommodate the corrections. Wyoming responded by letter dated November 22, 2023, that, although they had taken the initial steps to address our concerns, the State's internal rulemaking processes would preclude Wyoming from making the corrections within the allowable timeframe. Wyoming subsequently undertook rulemaking to correct the minor errors; the revised rules were approved by the Environmental Quality Council on October 23, 2024, filed with the Wyoming Secretary of State on January 3, 2025, and transmitted to OSMRE on January 22, 2025. In the January 22, 2025, revisions, Wyoming included additional minor corrections noted during our initial review of the original amendment and communicated to the State by email on July 27, 2021. Specifically, we pointed out that in the language proposed for chapter 14, subsection 2(e)(iii), the word “part” was misspelled “peart;” at subsection 2(g), the punctuation directly after the first use of “shall” should probably have been a colon instead of a semicolon; and at subsection 2(h), the punctuation directly after the second use of the term “material” should probably have been a period instead of a comma.
During our initial review of the January 22, 2025, revision package, we noticed a new typographical error that was introduced during the rulemaking to correct the previously identified errors. Specifically, in the required correction to chapter 14, subsection 3(e), in referencing its Land Quality Division Coal Rules and Regulations, Wyoming transposed the words “Coal” and “Division” forming the incorrect title for these regulations as “Land Quality Coal Division Rules and Regulations.” We communicated this discrepancy to the State, which was able to make the correction using its streamlined process for non-substantive changes that do not require formal rulemaking. Accordingly, on February 7, 2025, Wyoming retransmitted a corrected copy of the January 22, 2025, submittal.
The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Wyoming program.
If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of their comments. The public hearing will continue until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak, and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance dated October 12, 1993 (OMB Memo M-94-3), the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption.
When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the
We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.
State regulatory program approval, State-Federal cooperative agreement, Required program amendments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri. Missouri requests that EPA approve replacing the previous statewide sulfur dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2025.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2025-0263 to
Wendy Vit, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air—Analysis, Grants, Partnership Programs, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7697; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2025-0263, at
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri SIP received on April 23, 2025. In its submission, the MoDNR requested rescinding 10 CSR 10-6.260 “Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds” and replacing it with a newer statewide regulation, 10 CSR 10-6.261 “Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions” (state effective date May 30, 2025) in the Missouri SIP. At the same time, we are proposing to approve Missouri's negative declaration pursuant to the state's approved Clean Air Act (CAA) 111(d) plan for Sulfuric Acid Mist from Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Plants, which is codified at 40 CFR 62.6353. The negative declaration is necessary for Missouri to remove portions of 10 CSR 10-6.260 that are linked to the state's 111(d) plan for sulfuric acid production.
10 CSR 10-6.260 was originally approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1320(c) in 1998 (63 FR 45727, August 27, 1998) and has been revised in the SIP several times.
In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP revision, the SIP revision must meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA may not approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Missouri submitted a CAA section 110(l) demonstration in support of their requested SIP revisions, which is included in the docket for this action. Our analysis of the key SIP revisions and Missouri's section 110(l) demonstration can be found in section III of this preamble. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) included in this docket provides greater detail.
10 CSR 10-6.261 contains SO
This section summarizes the EPA's analysis of 10 CSR 10-6.260 in the Missouri SIP
Compared to the clean fuel exemption in 6.260 paragraph (1)(A)2., 6.261 subsection (1)(A) maintains exemptions for units that burn natural gas or liquified petroleum gas, plus adds an exemption for units that burn ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) with a sulfur content no greater than 15 parts per million (ppm). As discussed further in the EPA's TSD, a sulfur content of 15 ppm is equivalent to 0.0015 weight percent (wt%) sulfur, which is less than the rule's most stringent fuel oil sulfur content limit of 2 wt%. In addition, 15 ppm equates to an SO
6.260 subsection (3)(A) contains stack gas concentration limits for existing sources of 70 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m
Although provisions addressing indirect heating sources that are not identified by name were reorganized and clarified in 6.261, general applicability and SO
The facility-specific SO
The SO
As noted above, the numeric limit for Hawthorn originated in a PSD permit which included the numeric limit as well as the associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) requirements. Those MRR requirements were not previously included in 6.260 and accordingly were not in the SIP. However, the necessary MRR for Hawthorn's limit will be incorporated into the SIP as part of our action on 6.261. 6.261 subsection (3)(C) specifies the required compliance demonstrations for this rulemaking which includes Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) and performance testing depending on the fuel type. This rule provides CEMS operating specifications and performance testing requirements under 6.261 section (5). Per the Hawthorn Title V Operating Permit, SO
Other facilities retained in 6.261 Table 1 with no change to their SO
The following facilities with SO
The following facilities are not included in 6.261 Table 1 because they meet the rule's exemptions or are subject to a permanent and federally enforceable SO
Based on our analysis, we are proposing to find that the revisions to the facility-specific SO
Other revisions to 6.261 include consolidating and clarifying reporting and recordkeeping requirements in section (4) and CEMS and test method specifications in section (5), removing duplicative requirements, as well as making a number of other clarifications and corrections. The applicability of reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 6.261 section (4) for excess emissions is expanded to all sources subject to 6.261, with the exception of startup, shutdown, and malfunction emissions (SSM) which are covered under a separate rule in the Missouri SIP, 10 CSR 10-6.050 Start-Up, Shutdown, and Malfunction Conditions. In 6.260, only certain non-named indirect heating sources located in the St. Louis area counties and secondary lead smelters were subject to the rule's excess emissions reporting requirements. 6.261 section (4) also expands on the recordkeeping requirements in 6.260 to include more detail on records that must be maintained. In 6.261 section (5) test methods, the revisions provide greater clarify on specific SO
The CAA delineates regulations for air pollution emissions that can adversely impact public health. CAA section 111 requires the EPA establish standards of performance for certain categories of stationary sources that, in the Administrator's judgment, “cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Under CAA section 111(d), EPA has issued emission guidelines (EGs) regulating five pollutants from six source categories that are currently in effect [sulfuric acid plants (acid mist), phosphate fertilizer plants (fluorides), primary aluminum plants (fluorides), kraft pulp plants (total reduced sulfur), municipal solid waste landfills (landfill gases), and fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (greenhouse gases)]. CAA section 111(d) in conjunction with CAA section 111(a)(1) establishes and defines roles and responsibilities for both the EPA and the states in the regulation of designated facilities. States use the EPA's standards of performance as the basis for establishing requirements for designated facilities in their state implementation plans. The states submit their plans to the EPA, and the EPA must evaluate each state plan. If a state has no designated facilities for
40 CFR part 62 lists the state plans for control of pollutants and facilities under section 111(d) and section 129 of the CAA. The State of Missouri's approved plan for Sulfuric Acid Mist from Existing Sulfuric Acid Productions Plants is codified at 40 CFR 62.6353. As stated in 40 CFR 62.6353, in Missouri, 111(d) sulfuric acid production requirements have historically applied to a single plant, W.R. Grace and Company in Joplin, Missouri. The regulation was initially approved and codified into the CFR on March 14, 1986.
MoDNR submitted a negative declaration to EPA on May 4, 2022 certifying that the existing sulfuric acid production plant specified in 40 CFR 62.6353 was no longer in operation. W.R. Grace and Company in Joplin, Missouri was the only source listed under 40 CFR 62.6353. MoDNR's negative declaration stated that an inspection conducted on the facility on January 13, 2004 determined that the facility was closed. The facility has since remained closed.
EPA is proposing to approve the negative declaration submitted by MoDNR serving in lieu of their CAA 111(d) state plan for the Sulfuric Acid Mist from Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Plants guidelines to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06. Any new sulfuric acid production operations in Missouri would be subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart H, Standards of Performance for Sulfuric Acid Plants, which applies to sulfuric acid production facilities constructed or modified after August 17, 1971.
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided an initial 60-day public review and comment period on the Regulatory Impact Report, draft version of 10 CSR 10-6.261, and CAA section 110(l) demonstration from February 2, 2024 to April 2, 2024. The State provided an additional public notice period from November 1, 2024 to December 12, 2024 and received zero (0) comments. A public hearing was held December 5, 2024. As explained above (and in more detail in the TSD which is included in the docket for this action), the revisions proposed for approval meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rule will occur after consideration of any comments. The State of Missouri previously conducted a public notice on the rule changes. We are publishing the proposed rulemaking in the
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Missouri Regulations of 10 CSR 10-6.261 Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions as described in section II of this preamble and set forth below in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Also, in this document, as described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, EPA is proposing to remove provisions of the EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations and Statutes from the Missouri State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that approve state implementation plans are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rulemaking does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 52 and 62 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
Letter from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, submitted May 4, 2022, certifying that there are no sulfuric acid production plants in Missouri.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) related to Definitions and Common Reference Tables used in Missouri rules. EPA has also previously approved this rule as part of the air planning and permitting program. Some of the definitions are associated with those programs, even though many of the definitions pertain only to the SIP. These revisions do not impact the stringency of the SIP or have an adverse effect on air quality. The EPA's proposed approval of this rule revision is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2025.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2025-0289 to
Steven Brown, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7718; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2025-0289, at
The EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Missouri on July 15, 2024. The revisions are to Title 10, Division 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR), 10 CSR 10-6.020 “Definitions and Common Reference Tables.” The purpose of this state regulation is to provide definitions of key words and expressions used in Missouri rules for Chapters 1-6 statewide and provides common reference tables. The amendments to this rule add definitions and remove obsolete definitions since the last rule, either because the definitions have been added into an associated applicable rule, the terms are already defined in statute, or the applicable rule has been rescinded. Additionally, the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants and Exempt Volatile Organic Compounds is updated to match the current lists dictated in the CAA section 112(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.100(s), respectively. EPA proposes to find that these revisions meet the requirements of the CAA, do not impact the stringency of the SIP, and do not adversely impact air quality. The full text of the rule revisions as well as EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support document (TSD) and in the state submittal included in this docket.
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from November 1, 2023, to December 14, 2023, and held a public hearing on December 7, 2023. The state of Missouri received two comments during the public comment period on 10 CSR 10-6.020. Missouri responded to both comments and revised the rule based on public comments prior to submitting to EPA, as noted in the State submission included in the docket for this action. As explained above and in more detail in the technical support document, which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
The EPA is proposing to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-6.020 “Definitions and Common Reference Tables.” EPA's proposed action approves these amendments as part of the SIP, 111(d), and Title V programs even though many of the definitions only pertain to SIPs. We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to finalize the incorporation by reference of the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.020 discussed in section II. of this preamble and as set forth below in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The purpose of this state regulation is to provide definitions of key words and expressions used in Missouri rules for Chapters 1-6 statewide and provides common reference tables. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866:
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 52, 62, and 70 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
(b) * * *
(6) A revision to Missouri's 111(d) plan to incorporate state regulation 10 CSR 10-6.020 Definitions and Common Reference Tables was state effective May 20, 2024. The effective date of the amended plan is [date 60 days after date of publication of the final rule in the
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(cc) The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.020, “Definitions and Common Reference Tables” on July 15, 2024. The state effective date is May 20, 2024. This revision is effective [date 60 days after date
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks further comment on ways to use the 12.7-13.25 GHz band and the 42.0-42.5 GHz band more efficiently and intensively by satellite communications and seeks comment on proposals to make additional spectrum resources available for satellite communications in the 51.4-52.4 GHz band and within certain W-band frequency ranges (92.0-94.0 GHz, 94.1-100 GHz, 102.0-109.5 GHz, and 111.8-114.25 GHz).
Comments are due July 28, 2025. Reply comments are due August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by SB Docket No. 25-180, GN Docket No. 22-352, WT Docket No. 23-158, and GN Docket No. 14-177, by any of the following methods:
☐
☐
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Stephen Duall, 202-418-1103,
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 25-29, adopted May 22, 2025, and released May 27, 2025. The full text is available online at
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the
☐
☐
○ Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
○ Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
○ Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
○ Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express, must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
☐
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200(a), this proceeding will be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact of potential rule and policy changes contained in the NPRM on small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the Commission document,
This document does not contain proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on
1. The satellite industry is delivering a new wave of innovation and investment as demand for high-speed connectivity skyrockets thanks to streaming, cloud services, global connectivity initiatives, and emerging AI applications. With major investment in the ecosystem and next-generation satellite systems promising faster, more reliable, and lower-latency service, having abundant satellite spectrum is more critical than ever. To ensure U.S. leadership in this rapidly evolving sector and to keep pace with global developments, the Commission is committed to achieving spectrum abundance for the growing competitive ecosystem of existing and emerging satellite services. The Commission initiates these proceedings to explore opportunities to make over 20,000 megahertz of spectrum available for satellite use across four bands.
2. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission seeks further comment on ways to use the 12.7-13.25 GHz band (12.7 GHz band) and the 42.0-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz band) more efficiently and intensively, in order to promote technological innovation, the growth of the nation's economy, and greater connectivity for the American public. Previously, the Commission has sought comment on ways that the 12.7 GHz band and 42 GHz band could be used more intensively by terrestrial wireless communications to achieve these goals. The FNPRM seeks comment on ways that these bands could be used more intensively by satellite communications, as an alternative or a complement to the previous proposals for terrestrial wireless communications in these bands.
3. The Commission is interested in opening the 12.7 GHz band to a wider range of satellite operations by eliminating regulatory restrictions that prevent intensive satellite use of the band. Geostationary orbit (GSO) operations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band are currently limited to communications between domestic and international points. Meanwhile, non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) fixed-satellite service (FSS) operations in this band are limited to uplink communications with individually licensed earth stations. The Commission is also interested in exploring more intensive use of the greenfield 42 GHz band by seeking comment on an allocation for fixed-satellite service. In both instances, the Commission seeks comment on ways to protect any incumbent spectrum users in the bands, as well as ways to protect spectrum users, particularly Federal operators, in adjacent bands.
4. In the accompanying NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on proposals to make additional spectrum resources available for satellite communications, particularly satellite broadband, in two bands the Commission has not previously considered. First, the Commission invites comment on proposals to open up spectrum for satellite communications in the 51.4-52.4 GHz band (52 GHz band). Next, the Commission seeks comment on certain “W-band” frequencies (92.0-94.0 GHz, 94.1-100 GHz, 102.0-109.5 GHz, and 111.8-114.25 GHz). Both bands represent large swathes of spectrum that are largely unused for non-Federal services today. They are also the subject of considerable interest by stakeholders for commercial satellite use. Allocations for satellite services in these bands could facilitate the growth and innovation of next-generation satellite services and present a “first-mover” advantage for U.S. licensed operators.
5. The 12.7 GHz band is currently shared by a mixture of terrestrial wireless and satellite uses, with limited Federal operations in the band. In the United States, the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations (Table of Allocations) allocates the 12.7 GHz band on a primary basis for non-Federal use to fixed service (FS), FSS (Earth-to-space), and the mobile service (MS). The band is shared among fixed microwave services (FS—part 101), fixed and mobile Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) (part 74), fixed and mobile Cable Relay Service (CARS) (part 78), and FSS (FSS—part 25). Although the 12.7-12.75 GHz portion of the 12.7 GHz band has the same primary allocations for FSS, FS, and MS as the 12.75-13.25 GHz portion, there are no part 25 service rules cross-referenced in Table of Allocations in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band.
6. The international allocations for the 12.75-13.25 GHz band are similar to the Table of Allocations in most respects. However, FSS (space-to-Earth) transmissions are permitted at 12.7-12.75 GHz in International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regions 1 and 3 but not in Region 2. Domestically, Footnote NG52 of the Table of Allocations precludes most FSS systems using satellites in geostationary orbit from using the 12.75-13.25 GHz band for domestic services, which limits the deployment of FSS earth stations in the band. In addition, Footnote NG57 limits the use of the 12.75-13.25 GHz band by FSS systems using satellites in non-geostationary orbit to communications with individually licensed earth stations.
7. The lower adjacent 12.2-12.7 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis for non-Federal use for Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS) (referred to domestically as Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)), NGSO FSS (space-to-Earth), and FS. While the three services are co-primary, NGSO FSS and FS are allocated on a non-harmful interference basis to DBS. Currently there are three services operating in the band: DBS providers operating under the primary BSS allocation, NGSO FSS licensees operating under the co-primary NGSO FSS allocation, and Multi-Channel Video and Data Distribution Service (MVDDS) licensees operating under the co-primary FS allocation.
8. The 12.75-13.25 GHz portion of the 12.7 GHz band has an allocation for a single Federal user—the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which operates a receive-only earth station for its Deep Space Network (DSN) at Goldstone, California, that is authorized to receive transmissions across the entire 12.75-13.25 GHz band.
9. In the adjacent 13.25-13.4 GHz band, there is a primary allocation for non-Federal use in the Aeronautical Radionavigation service, and there are secondary allocations for non-Federal use for the Earth exploration-satellite
10. In October 2022, the Commission released its 12.7 GHz Notice of Inquiry (12.7 GHz NOI) to broadly seek information on the current use of the 12.7 GHz band, how the Commission could encourage more efficient and intensive use of the band, and whether the band is suitable for mobile broadband or other expanded use. As part of the 12.7 GHz NOI, the Commission extended a temporary freeze on 12.7 GHz band applications pending the outcome of GN Docket No. 22-352. This temporary freeze applied to the filing of new or modified applications for licenses in the 12.7 GHz band, in order to preserve the landscape of authorized operations in the band pending the Commission's consideration of actions that might encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.
11. In May 2023, the Commission released an NPRM in GN Docket No. 22-352 (12.7 GHz Band NPRM) that proposed to repurpose some or all of the 550 megahertz of the 12.7 GHz band spectrum for mobile terrestrial broadband or other expanded use. It also sought comment on various proposals for transitioning some or all of the 12.7 GHz band to mobile broadband and other expanded use, as well as on alternatives that could promote use of the band on a shared basis.
12. Under the proposals of the 12.7 GHz NPRM to repurpose the 12.7 GHz band, incumbent point-to-point fixed licenses licensed under parts 74, 78, and 101 of the Commission's rules would be relocated from the band or, alternatively, would become secondary (
13. At the same time, the Commission declined to authorize two-way, high-powered terrestrial mobile services in the adjacent 12.2-12.7 GHz band, finding that they would impose significant risk of harmful interference to existing and emergent services in the band, including satellite services. The Commission sought comment, however, on the potential to expand terrestrial fixed use or to permit unlicensed use in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. In response to the 12.7 GHz Band NPRM, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) provided analyses and recommendations in support of maintaining federal applications and missions.
14. The 42 GHz band is not currently used for any existing services in the United States. It is allocated to non-Federal FS and MS on a primary basis. Although the Commission sought comment previously on proposed service rules for this band among other bands above 24 GHz, none are currently in place, and the band has no incumbent licensees. Accordingly, the 42 GHz band represents “greenfield” spectrum that gives greater flexibility in designing a licensing scheme that may be optimized for future use and that can take advantage of new technological developments more easily than a band with existing deployments.
15. There is no allocation for satellite services in the 42 GHz band. The Commission has previously twice declined to add an FSS (space-to-Earth) allocation in the 42 GHz band. The lower adjacent 40-42 GHz band has been designated for satellite use, with allocations on a primary basis for FSS (space-to-Earth) and Broadcasting-Satellite. Similarly, there is no Federal allocation in the 42 GHz band, but the upper adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band is allocated to the radio astronomy service on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use and to the Federal FS, FSS (Earth-to-space), and MS—except aeronautical mobile—services on a primary basis.
16. In June 2023, the Commission released an NPRM in WT Docket No. 23-158 and GN Docket No. 14-177 (42 GHz NPRM), which sought comment on proposals to provide increased access to the 42 GHz band, particularly by smaller wireless service providers, to support efficient, intensive use of the band. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on a variety of potential approaches to licensing the 42 GHz band for flexible use by FS and MS operations on a shared basis, as well as on any alternatives that might better promote the Commission's goals of more efficient spectrum use and lower barriers to spectrum access compared with traditional exclusive-use licensing in this band. The Commission proposed to authorize flexible MS and FS operations in the 42 GHz band, provided that RAS could be protected in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band, and it proposed to require licensees in the 42 GHz band to limit emissions into the 42.35-43.5 GHz band in order to protect RAS at observatory locations.
17. The Commission seeks to supplement the record in the 12.7 GHz band and 42 GHz band proceedings by seeking comment on alternative proposals for increasing the use of these two bands by satellite communications. Although the Commission has previously sought comment on proposals to provide increased access to both bands for terrestrial wireless services, including mobile broadband or other expanded uses, the Commission now seeks to further develop the record on whether increasing access by satellite communications might better encourage a more efficient and intensive use of these bands on a more expedited basis than the previous proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on whether increasing the use of these bands by satellite communications may be more harmonious with existing users of the bands, both domestically and internationally, and with spectrum users in adjacent bands, particularly Federal operations.
18. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are cross-border coordination mechanisms in either the 12.7 GHz band or the 42 GHz band that the Commission should review or seek to remove to ensure efficient and adequate transitions, and sufficient protection from harmful interference, at the borders? Commenters should provide detailed information on any potential cross-border interference concerns and other international considerations as well as possible actions to address them.
19. The Commission seeks further comment on whether expanding the use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications might better encourage a more efficient and intensive use of the band than previous proposals to repurpose this band for mobile broadband or other expanded uses. Comments from satellite operators in response to the 12.7 GHz NOI and 12.7 GHz NPRM state that there is an increasing demand for satellite services, particularly broadband services, and a growing need for sufficient spectrum to enable such services. They assert that, although the 12.7 GHz band is not currently heavily used by satellite communications in the United States, this is due to regulatory restrictions on the use of this band, rather than to the lack of utility of the band for satellite communications or the desire of satellite operators to make use of this band. They assert that the quickest way to make more intensive use of the 12.7 GHz band is to lift these regulatory restrictions. Satellite operators also state that lifting these regulatory restrictions and expanding the use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications could harmonize the use of the 12.7 GHz band in the United States with global spectrum allocations and could better protect incumbent users in adjacent bands from harmful interference than previous proposals. The Commission seeks further comment on these assertions and statements.
20. The Commission seeks further comment on the demand and need for the 12.7 GHz band to support satellite communication services, particularly any changes that have occurred in the time since the 12.7 GHz NPRM was adopted in 2023. How would expanding access by satellite communications to the 12.7 GHz band enable more efficient and intensive use of this band? What should be the metric for such a determination? Should it be based on total throughput over all users of the band? Which specific types of communications would be enabled or enhanced by expanding the use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications? What would be the expected timeframe for achieving the benefits from expanding the use of the band by satellite communications and how does this timeframe compare to that expected under previous proposals to repurpose the 12.7 GHz band for mobile broadband or other expanded uses? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.
21. The Commission seeks further comment on whether a more efficient and intensive use of the 12.7 GHz band can be achieved by eliminating existing regulatory restrictions on the use of the band by satellite communications. Footnote NG52 limits GSO FSS in 12.75-13.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space) to international systems, that is, other than domestic systems. This limitation was designed to protect incumbent BAS, CARS, and fixed microwave operations from a large number of satellite earth station deployments. Satellite operators claim that Footnote NG52 artificially limits FSS deployments in the 12.7 GHz band and is no longer needed if the Commission determines that the growth of incumbent BAS, CARS, and fixed microwave use is no longer considered as important as it might have been in 2000. The Commission seeks further comment on whether Footnote NG52 is still needed to protect incumbent BAS, CAS, and fixed microwave operations in the 12.7 GHz band, or whether there are means other than Footnote NG52 to protect incumbent FS and MS operations in the band that would not restrict satellite access to the band unnecessarily.
22. The Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the regulatory restriction of Footnote NG52 that limits the use of the 12.7 GHz band by GSO satellite communications to international systems. Would increasing access to the 12.75-13.25 GHz portion of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications be most efficiently and expeditiously achieved by amending the text of Footnote NG52 to remove its applicability to the 12.75-13.25 GHz band, as proposed by commenters? Are any additional changes to Footnote NG52 or other footnotes needed to eliminate regulatory restrictions that limit the use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications? Are any other changes to the Commission's part 25 rules or other rule parts necessary to remove regulatory restrictions on the use of the 12.75-13.25 GHz band by satellite communications?
23. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the more efficient and intensive use of the 12.7 GHz band can be achieved by expanding the use of the band by Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs). The Commission has already authorized ESIMs operations with NGSO FSS systems in the adjacent 12.2-12.7 GHz band in the space-to-Earth direction. Would the 12.7 GHz band be more efficiently and intensively used, and would the American public have better connectivity, if the band were also available for ESIMs operations? The Commission seeks comment on this question.
24. As a result of agenda item 1.15 at the 2023 World Radio Conference (WRC), international Footnote 5.496A was adopted for all three ITU regions. Footnote 5.496A provides that the 12.75-13.25 GHz band can be used by ESIMs on aircraft and vessels communicating with GSO FSS space stations. Such use is also subject to Resolution 121 (WRC-23), which addresses the use of the 12.75-13.25 GHz band by ESIMS on aircraft and vessels. Although the Commission has not incorporated Footnote 5.496A into the international table of the Table of Allocations, wide-spread adoption of this footnote into national frequency allocations could harmonize the use of the 12.75-13.25 GHz band globally by satellite communications for ESIMs operations in the Earth-to-space direction.
25. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should build upon the decisions of WRC-23, particularly Footnote 5.496A, by amending the text of Footnote NG527A to permit authorization of ESIMs, as an application of the FSS, to communicate with GSO and NGSO FSS space stations. Specifically, should the Commission amend paragraph (ii) of Footnote NG527A to add “12.75-13.25 GHz (Earth-to-space)” as a band in which ESIMs may be authorized to communicate with geostationary satellites on a primary basis? In addition, should the Commission amend paragraph (iii) of Footnote NG527A to add “12.75-13.25 GHz (Earth-to-space)” as a band in which ESIMs may be authorized to communicate with NGSO space stations, subject to the condition that NGSO systems may not cause unacceptable interference to, nor claim protection from, GSO networks? The Commission seeks comment on these questions, as well as on any other changes to the text of Footnote NG527A, or other footnotes, that could facilitate expanding the use of the 12.75-13.25 GHz band by ESIMs operations, including authorizing ESIMs to communicate with NGSO FSS systems.
26. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to delete or amend Footnote NG57 to the Table of Allocations in order to expand the use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications. Footnote NG57 limits use of the 12.75-13.25 GHz band by NGSO FSS systems to communications with individually licensed earth stations, such as gateway earth stations. As a result, Footnote NG57 prohibits the authorization of earth stations through
27. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to make any other changes to the Table of Allocations and its part 25 rules to expand the use of the 12.7-12.75 GHz band by satellite communications. Should the existing allocations on a primary basis for FSS (Earth-to-space), FS, and MS in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band be maintained? Could the 12.7-12.75 GHz band be more intensively used by satellite communications if a primary allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth) were added to the existing primary allocation for FSS (Earth-to-space)? Are there any changes that need to be made to the Commission's part 25 rules for FSS operations in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band, and should “Satellite Communications (part 25)” be added to the FCC Rule Part(s) column of the Table of Allocations in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band? If changes are made to part 25, what changes are necessary to address any increased operations by satellite communications in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band? Are the existing licensing and operating provisions of section 25.146 that govern NGSO FSS operations in the 10.7-30 GHz frequency range sufficient, including any applicable equivalent power-flux density (EPFD) levels? Similarly, are any part 25 rule changes needed to address increased access by satellite communications in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.
28. The Commission seeks comment on whether the more efficient and intensive use of the 12.7 GHz band can be achieved by expanding ESIMs operations in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band. Currently, the Commission has authorized ESIMs operating on U.S.-registered aircraft and vessels outside the United States in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band in the space-to-Earth direction. Should the Commission authorize ESIMs in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band, either inside or outside the United States, in a similar manner to ESIMs in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band, that is by amending the text of Footnote NG527A to permit authorization of ESIMs, using frequency bands allocated for FSS, to communicate with GSO and NGSO space stations in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band? The Commission observes that Footnote NG527A is not currently included as a footnote to either the 12.7-12.75 GHz band or the 12.75-13.25 GHz band; rather, the applicability of Footnote NG527A to the 12.75-13.25 GHz band is through an exception contained within Footnote NG52, and Footnote NG52 does not currently apply to the 12.7-12.75 GHz band. If more efficient and intensive use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications would be achieved by expanding ESIMs operations in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band, should the Commission add Footnote NG527A to the non-Federal allocation for the 12.7-12.75 GHz band and amend the text of §§ (d)(ii) and (ii) of Footnote 527A to include “12.7-12.75 GHz (Earth-to-space)”? The Commission seeks comment on these questions and observations.
29. The Commission seeks comment on whether the 12.7 GHz band could be used for FSS (space-to-Earth) operations in addition to, or as an alternative to, the existing allocation for FSS (Earth-to-space) operations. Could the 12.7 GHz band be more intensively used by satellite communications if satellite downlinks were permitted, either throughout the 12.7 GHz band, or in either the 12.7-12.75 GHz or the 12.75-13.25 GHz band? NGSO FSS downlink operations are authorized in the adjacent 12.2-12.7 GHz band pursuant to international Footnote 5.487A, and allowing downlinks in the 12.7 GHz band, particularly to blanket-licensed user terminals, could provide additional contiguous spectrum for use by high-speed services. Are there specific technical, economic, or legal reasons to prohibit use of the 12.7 GHz band, in whole or in part, for satellite downlink communications? Is it feasible for both satellite uplinks and downlinks to operate in the 12.7 GHz band, perhaps through geographic separation or some other means of coordination? What changes to the Table of Allocations or our part 25 rules would be necessary to allow use of the 12.7 GHz band, in whole or in part, for FSS (space-to-Earth) operations?
30. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the expanded use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications in the Earth-to-space direction could impose a risk harmful interference to satellite communications, as well as other co-primary users, in the adjacent 12.2-12.7 GHz band. Would limiting FSS (Earth-to-space) to individually licensed earth stations in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band be a desirable means to mitigate such a risk? Are there other means, such as out-of-band emission limits on FSS (Earth-to-space) operations in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band, that could equally or more effectively mitigate the risk of harmful interference between satellite communications in the 12.7 GHz band and co-primary spectrum users in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band to allow the use of ESIMs operations in the 12.7 GHz band? If so, what are the appropriate technical parameters for these other means to mitigate risks of harmful interference to co-primary spectrum users in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band? Could interference to satellite communications and other co-primary users in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band be mitigated by limiting satellite communications in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band to ESIMs operations in the space-to-Earth direction outside of the United States, essentially creating a 50 megahertz buffer between the 12.2-12.7 GHz band and 12.75-13.25 GHz band in the United States? Would a 50 megahertz buffer sufficiently protect the primary satellite receivers in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band from out of band emissions of the earth stations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band? Would there be blocking issues for the primary satellite receivers in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band due to high power transmissions from the nearby earth stations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band? How would the interference environment change if satellite downlinks were permitted in the 12.7 GHz band, either in addition to satellite uplinks or as an alternative to satellite uplinks? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.
31. The Commission also seeks comment on lifting the existing freeze on space and earth station applications in the 12.7 GHz band, if it is determined that use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications would better encourage a more efficient and intensive use of the band than previous proposals to repurpose this band for mobile broadband or other expanded uses. Would the most efficient means of lifting the freeze be the release of a public notice announcing a date on which applications for new space stations and earth stations could be filed? The Commission also seeks comment on the timing of any public notice lifting the freeze on new space and earth station filings in the 12.7 GHz band.
32. The Commission seeks comment on whether to process any new applications for GSO FSS space stations using the existing “first-come, first-served” procedures for GSO-like satellite operations. Although the 12.75-13.25 GHz band constitutes a “planned
33. The Commission seeks comment on whether to license new NGSO FSS space stations in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band pursuant to its part 25 procedures for “NGSO-like” satellite operations. Processing rounds for NGSO-like satellite applications that included the 12.75-13.25 GHz band were begun in 2017 and 2020. The Commission seeks comment on whether existing procedures under its part 25 rules are sufficient to authorize new NGSO FSS operations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band or whether any changes to its rules are needed.
34. The Commission seeks comment on whether expanded use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications necessitates any changes to the spectrum sharing obligations between FSS (Earth-to-space) operations and non-Federal terrestrial operations, particularly fixed point-to-point and mobile BAS and CARS. Should the existing primary allocations for FS and MS in the 12.7 GHz band be maintained? If they are maintained, are they compatible with the a more intensive use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications? Alternatively, should the existing allocations for FS and MS in the 12.7 GHz band be changed from a primary to a secondary allocation in the United States, in either the 12.7-12.75 GHz band or the 12.75-13.25 GHz band, in order to reflect any more intensive use of the band by FSS?
35. The Commission observes that previous proposals in these proceedings to repurpose some or all of the 12.7 GHz band for terrestrial mobile broadband or other expanded uses envisioned the sunsetting of protections from interference for incumbent FS and MS operations, or repacking these operations into a smaller segment of the 12.7 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on whether increasing the use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications requires similar sunsetting or repacking of non-Federal terrestrial operations in the 12.7 GHz band, or whether increased use of the band by FSS (Earth-to-space) can be accomplished under existing spectrum sharing obligations without repacking? If repacking of mobile BAS/CARS is required, would repacking be most effectively accomplished by moving mobile BAS/CARS operations to a 25-megahertz segment within the 12.75-13.25 GHz band or by concentrating them in two segments—at the top and bottom of the 12.7-13.25 GHz band, respectively, as suggested in previous proposals for expanded use of the 12.7 GHz band, or by concentrating mobile BAS/CARS operations within the 50 megahertz of the 12.7-12.75 GHz band? How might such repacking of BAS/CARS to the 12.7-12.75 GHz band impact operations of primary spectrum users in the adjacent 12.2-12.7 GHz band? If there is a repacking of mobile BAS/CARS operations to facilitate the expanded use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications, which entities should bear the costs arising from the repacking? The Commission seeks comment on these questions, including comments on the potential costs and benefits associated with different repacking alternatives.
36. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the expanded use of the 12.75-13.25 GHz band by satellite communications would be facilitated or accelerated by the deletion or sunsetting of Footnote NG53 to the Table of Allocations. Footnote NG53 reserves sub-bands in the range of 13.15 GHz to 13.2125 GHz for television pick up (TVPU) and CARS inside a 50 kilometer radius of the top 100 television markets and prohibits NGSO FSS gateway stations from operating in these locations in these sub-bands. Outside these areas, NGSO FSS gateway stations operate on a co-primary basis with terrestrial operations in these sub-bands. The provisions of Footnote NG53 do not apply to GSO FSS operations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band. Do the provisions of Footnote NG53 unnecessarily restrict the use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications, particularly by NGSO FSS and by ESIMs on aircraft and vessels, and if so, would the restriction be more efficiently removed by deleting or sunsetting Footnote NG53, or through the Commission's previously discussed proposal of repacking mobile BAS/CARS to either the top and/or bottom of the bands? If sunsetting would be a more efficient means of removing the restriction, what should be the period of any sunsetting of the protections of Footnote NG53? Are there less restrictive alternatives to Footnote NG53 as means to protect incumbent terrestrial operations in the 12.7 GHz band from potential harmful interference from increased FSS operations in the band, such as power flux density (PFD) limits or more narrowly-tailored geographic separation requirements for blanket-licensed or ESIM earth stations? What would be the costs to providers and users of incumbent services were they to be sunset, and how do these compare to the costs of protecting incumbents using PFD limits or other means? The Commission seeks comment on these questions. Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the current freeze on FS, BAS, and CARS applications should be lifted, extended, or made permanent if use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications is expanded, as well as the procedures for doing so.
37. The Commission also seeks comment on how to avoid causing harmful interference to other incumbent co-primary operations in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band if the Commission expands use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications, particularly if the Commission adopts blanket licensing of earth stations, including ESIMs. Currently, Footnote NG53 applies to the 12.75-13.25 GHz band, but not to the 12.7-12.75 GHz band. Would amending the text of Footnote NG53 to apply its protections to all or part of the 12.7-12.75 GHz band accomplish this goal? Should it be added to the 12.7-12.75 GHz band, particularly if BAS and CARS operations relocate to that band in order to make the 12.75-13.25 GHz band more accessible for satellite communications? Are there alternatives to Footnote NG53 that may be effective in allowing satellite communications and other incumbent co-primary operations to co-exist in the 12.7 GHz band, such as emission limitations or other restrictions on blanket licensed earth stations and ESIMs operations (such as limiting ESIMs operations to aircraft above a certain altitude or to vessels a certain distance from the coastline)? If BAS and CARS are
38. The Commission seeks comment on how to continue to protect Federal space research (deep space) operations if the Commission adopts expanded use by satellite communications in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band. Footnote US251 of the Table of Allocations states that the 12.75-13.25 GHz band is allocated to the space research (deep space) (space-to-Earth) service for reception at Goldstone, California. Currently, individually-licensed FSS (Earth-to-space) earth stations are able to avoid interference to NASA's Deep Space facility at Goldstone by means of geographic separation between the FSS earth station and the NASA facility.
39. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are measures that could protect Federal space research (deep space) facilities in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band from potential harmful interference from blanket licensed FSS (Earth-to-space) operations, particularly ESIMs. Is geographic separation a viable means of interference protection from blanket licensed FSS earth stations? Would adopting coordination requirements or aggregate emissions limitations for FSS blanket licensed earth stations be a more effective means of providing interference protection to the NASA Deep Space facility at Goldstone? In this regard, the Commission has previously sought comment on a coordination process to protect the Goldstone facility from possible interference that might be caused by mobile broadband or other expanded use in the 12.7 GHz band. Could such a coordination process also be used to provide protection from possible interference from blanket-licensed FSS earth stations, including ESIMs, transmitting in the 12.7 GHz band? Alternatively, would a coordination process, such as that which is used to protect NASA receiving earth stations from ESIMs in the 14.0-14.2 GHz (Earth-to-space) band, be considered adequate once tailored for this sharing scenario? Are there other means of protecting Federal operations at fixed locations that would not require coordination, such as the incorporation of global positioning technology in blanket-licensed earth stations to prevent transmissions within a geographic area? How would the interference environment change if satellite downlinks were permitted in the 12.7 GHz band, either in addition to satellite uplinks or as an alternative to satellite uplinks? Are there additional methods to ensure protection of deep space receivers located at Goldstone, California, noting the potential differences in number of systems and received power levels, if FSS downlinks are permitted in the 12.7 GHz band? The Commission observes that radio astronomy operations within the NRQZ could be affected by changes in satellite allocations in the 12.7 GHz band, particularly the introduction of FSS space-to-Earth downlinks. In light of the technical analyses and recommendations received from NTIA in response to the 12.7 GHz Band NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on maintaining federal operations of radio astronomy observatories located in remote sites, including within the NRQZ, operating in the 12.7 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on these questions.
40. The Commission seeks comment on ways to protect Federal operations in primary allocations for the Earth exploration satellite service (EESS) (active), aeronautical radionavigation (ARNS), and space research (active) in the adjacent 13.25-13.4 GHz band from the risk of harmful interference that may result from increased access by satellite communications in the 12.7 GHz band. The Commission similarly seeks comment on ways to protect Federal operations in the 13.4-13.75 GHz band, which is allocated on a primary basis for federal EESS (active), aeronautical radionavigation, and space research (active), and is allocated on a secondary basis for standard frequency and time signal-satellite (Earth-to-space).
41. NTIA has articulated several concerns related to the protection of Federal operations in the bands that are adjacent to the 12.7 GHz band. NTIA notes that the 13.25-13.4 GHz band is used by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate airborne Doppler navigation radar systems used to determine ground speed and drift angle of aircraft with respect to the ground. It also observes that future unmanned aircraft detect-and-avoid safety systems are being developed in the 13.25-13.4 GHz band. NTIA notes that the 13.4-13.75 GHz band is used for the DoD's operation of shipborne radars, for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) satellite operations in the Joint Satellite Oceanography Network (JASON) mission, for NASA's active remote sensing (including the future Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission), Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission, and Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TRDS) operations, as well as for the National Science Foundation's continuum and spectral-line radio astronomy research (including as a calibration aid for the radionavigation satellite service) operations. In the context of previous proposals to repurpose the 12.7 GHz band for mobile broadband and other expanded uses, NTIA expresses concern that aggregate interference from mobile base stations and ubiquitous mobile devices may cause interference to NASA and NOAA satellite systems, as well as to DoD radar systems.
42. The Commission seeks comment on how NTIA's concerns related to protection of Federal operations in the bands adjacent to, or nearby, the 12.7 GHz band may differ in the context of expanded use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications. Do individually licensed FSS (Earth-to-space) earth stations present the same potential risk of harmful interference to federal operations in the adjacent 13.25-13.75 GHz bands as that presented by mobile broadband or other expanded uses of the 12.7 GHz band? Would expanded use of the 12.7 GHz band by blanket-licensed FSS (Earth-to-space) earth stations, including ESIMs, present a risk of harmful interference similar to that presented by potential mobile broadband operations in the band? Would relocation or compression of existing non-Federal and Federal systems impact the use of nearby bands? The Commission seeks comment on why such expanded use would, or would not, present a risk of harmful interference in a manner similar to potential mobile broadband operations. How would the interference environment change if satellite downlinks were permitted in the 12.7 GHz band, either in addition to satellite uplinks or as an alternative to satellite uplinks?
43. The Commission seeks comment on specific ways to mitigate the potential risk of harmful interference to federal operations in the adjacent 13.25-13.75 GHz band from any increased use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications. The Commission has
44. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other potential means to ensure that non-Federal operations at upper edge of the 12.7 GHz band are able to protect Federal operations in the adjacent 13.25-13.75 GHz band. The Commission previously sought comment on whether interference concerns could be alleviated by the creation of a buffer between potential non-Federal base/mobile operations in the 12.7 GHz band and Federal operations in the 13.25-13.75 GHz band? It sought comment on whether relocation of the mobile BAS/CARS operations into the upper portion of the 12.7 GHz band could alleviate some of the Federal concerns about interference. In response to the 12.7 GHz NPRM, NTIA performed a preliminary compatibility analysis using a typical military aeronautical radionavigation system in the 13.25-13.4 GHz band and a mobile base station with assumed characteristics in the 12.7 GHz band, which NTIA says indicated that a 25-megahertz frequency offset of mobile BAS/CARS operations would help alleviate some of the adjacent band interference concerns. The Commission seeks comment on whether buffers or offsets at the upper edge of the 12.7 GHz band are more or less necessary to protect Federal operations in the adjacent bands if the 12.7 GHz band were made available for increased use by satellite communications, compared to previous proposals to repurpose the 12.7 GHz band for mobile broadband or other expanded uses.
45. NTIA also presented an adjacent band compatibility analysis as an attachment to its comments in response to the 12.7 GHz NPRM, and stated that its analysis could be used as a starting point for further compatibility studies between potential mobile broadband networks in the 12.7 GHz band and Federal aeronautical radionavigation operations in the adjacent band. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis and its applicability to potential harmful interference from increased satellite communications in the 12.7 GHz band, particularly from blanket-licensed earth stations, including ESIMs.
46. The Commission seeks further comment on whether granting access to the 42 GHz band by satellite communications might better ensure that this high-band spectrum is used more efficiently and intensively. The comments of a satellite operator in response to the 42 GHz NPRM state that high-band spectrum has become increasingly important for use by NGSO FSS operators, and that 20 NGSO FSS operators have sought authority to use high-band spectrum. They contend that although consumer demand for satellite connectivity is growing, satellite operators are constrained by the amount of spectrum allocated for NGSO FSS use, which impacts the quality and availability of broadband services to consumers. They state that the Commission has contemplated FSS use of the 42 GHz band as far back as 2010, when it considered adding a primary allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth) to conform with the existing primary allocation for FSS in the international table. In 2016, however, the Commission declined to adopt a primary FSS allocation, determining that there was potentially greater value at that time to reserving the spectrum for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) and that exclusive use of the 42.0-42.5 GHz band for terrestrial use was balanced by previous decisions to provide exclusive access for FSS in other high-band spectrum. The Commission affirmed that decision, without additional reasoning, in 2018. The same satellite operator states that since 2016, making more high-band spectrum available for FSS has become even more crucial, because the 37.5-40.0 GHz frequency range desired for FSS downlinks to gateway stations has been limited due to siting restrictions designed to protect UMFUS operations. They contend that opening the 42 GHz band for satellite communications, particularly NGSO FSS operations, would be timely and sensible. The Commission seeks further comment on these statements and contentions.
47. The Commission seeks comment on whether developments, particularly since 2018, support a revisiting of prior Commission determinations that high-band spectrum, including the 42 GHz band, has potentially greater value for UMFUS or other terrestrial uses than for satellite communications. Do deployments since 2016 by satellite and terrestrial operators in other high-band spectrum bands justify a fresh look at the potential use of the 42 GHz band? Does the shorter propagation range of radio transmissions in the high-band frequency ranges limit or increase the economic viability of the 42 GHz band for terrestrial uses? How does the shorter propagation range similarly impact the viability of the band for satellite communications? Would the shorter propagation range increase the potential for unused or underused spectrum if the band were allocated for terrestrial operations, particularly in remote and less densely populated areas, and is the potential for unused or underused spectrum similar for satellite communications, if such use were allocated in the band? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.
48. The Commission seeks comment on whether granting access to the 42 GHz band by satellite communications would allow for most efficient spectrum use through adding an allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth) on a secondary basis, as proposed by the comments of a satellite operator, or through an allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth) on a primary basis. Would a secondary allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth) in the
49. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 42 GHz band could be used for FSS (Earth-to-space) in addition to, or as an alternative to, the existing allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth). Could the 42 GHz band be more intensively used by satellite communications if satellite uplinks were permitted? Are there specific technical, economic, or legal reasons to prohibit use of the 42 GHz band, in whole or in part, for satellite uplink communications? Is it feasible for both satellite uplinks and downlinks to operate in the 42 GHz band, perhaps through geographic separation or some other means of coordination? What changes to the Table of Allocations or the Commission's part 25 rules would be necessary to allow use of the 42 GHz band, in whole or in part, for FSS (Earth-to-space) operations?
50. The Commission seeks comment on whether to maintain the existing primary allocations for FS and MS in the 42 GHz band, if it is determined that this high-band spectrum could be used more efficiently and intensively by satellite communications. Would maintaining primary allocations for FS and MS in the 42 GHz band complement or inhibit use of the band for satellite communications? Would changing the allocation for FS and MS in the 42 GHz band to a secondary basis, or removing the allocations altogether, be necessary to ensure that this high-band spectrum is used more efficiently and intensively by satellite communications? How would such an allocations make the Table of Allocations more or less consistent with global allocations, and how would global consistency make use of the 42 GHz band by satellite operations more or less efficient and intensive?
51. The Commission observes that it is not proposing any new FSS allocation in one direction in the 42 GHz band be paired with any existing or proposed companion allocation for FSS in the opposite direction. For example, an allocation of 500 megahertz for FSS downlink operations would not be symmetrical with any equivalent spectrum for FSS uplinks. The Commission seeks comment on this asymmetry and what impact, if any, it may have on the efficient and effective use of the 42 GHz band by satellite communications. Could such asymmetry have positive effects, such as providing needed capacity for one-way communications, or could the asymmetry be offset, for example through aggregation of the 42 GHz with other downlink bands to pair with aggregated FSS uplink bands? Are there bands that are allocated for FSS uplinks internationally, but not domestically, that could be paired with an allocation for FSS downlinks in the 42 GHz band? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.
52. The Commission seeks comment on whether to license any FSS space stations or earth stations in the 42 GHz band using its existing part 25 licensing procedures and technical rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether any changes to its part 25 rules would be needed to accommodate use of the 42 GHz band by both GSO and NGSO space stations. Because millimeter wave transmissions in space-to-Earth direction are best suited for earth stations with large high-gain antennas rather than smaller blanket-licensed user terminals, and in order to limit the number of receiving earth stations that need to be coordinated with adjacent Federal spectrum users, the Commission seeks comment on whether to limit earth station operations in the 42 GHz band to individually licensed GSO and NGSO FSS gateway stations, or whether ESIMs or other blanket-licensed, non-gateway earth stations could be licensed in the 42 GHz band.
53. There are no existing Federal allocations in the 42 GHz band, but there are primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal radioastronomy operations in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band, and primary allocations for Federal operations in the FS, FSS (Earth-to-space), and MS (except aeronautical mobile) in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band. Footnotes US211 and US342 apply to the 42 GHz band and the 42.5-43.5 GHz bands, respectively, and seek to protect radio astronomy in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on how to protect these primary allocations in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band from the risk of harmful interference if the Commission were to allow the use of the 42 GHz band by satellite communications. How would the interference environment change if satellite uplinks were permitted in the 42 GHz band, either in addition to satellite downlinks or as an alternative to satellite downlinks?
54. The Commission observes that the 42 GHz band is already allocated and used for FSS (space-to-Earth) on a primary basis outside of the United States, and that such FSS operations are already required to protect radio astronomy operations through the limits on PFD and equivalent PFD emitted by FSS space stations through the provisions of ITU Footnote 5.551H and 5.551I, as well as ITU Resolution 743 (WRC-03), Protection of single-dish radio astronomy stations in Region 2 in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band (2003). The Commission seeks comment on whether these provisions, which have been in place for over twenty years, would be sufficient to protect radio astronomy in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band from the risk of harmful interference from FSS (space-to-Earth) operations in the 42 GHz band in the United States. If FSS (space-to-Earth) operations in the 42 GHz band are limited to individually licensed gateway earth stations, would geographic separation be an additional, or alternative, method to protect radio astronomy observations in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band? Are there other international Radio Regulation provisions or interference mitigation techniques that could facilitate the more intensive use of the 42 GHz band by non-Federal FSS (space-to-Earth) operations? For example, CORF supports the use of parameters established by ITU-R.RA 769 to be used as the criteria for protecting radio astronomy sites from interference, if specific methodology for protecting radio astronomy facilities is agreed upon. In addition, SIA suggests that the tighter “per 500 kHz” components of the EPFD and PFD limits in Footnote 5.551H and 5.551I of the ITU Radio Regulations and associated ITU Resolution 743 should apply only
55. The Commission also seeks comment on the ability of non-Federal FSS (space-to-Earth) operations in the 42 GHz band to coexist with Federal FSS (Earth-to-space) operations in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band. Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on the ability of non-Federal FSS (space-to-Earth) operations in the 42 GHz band to coexist with Federal MS (except aeronautical mobile) users in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band. The Commission observes that such Federal FSS (Earth-to-space) and MS operations must already limit their operations to protect Federal and non-Federal radio astronomy operations in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band. Given the need to protect radio astronomy sites within the same frequency band, would such protections also facilitate the ability of non-Federal FSS (space-to-Earth) operations in the adjacent 42 GHz band? The Commission seeks comment on these questions and observations.
56. Satellite operators have requested that the Commission examine making two other spectrum bands available for satellite communications, in addition to the 12.7 GHz and 42 GHz bands. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals concerning each of these requests below.
57. The Commission proposes to make the 51.4-52.4 GHz band more available for use by satellite communications, as requested by a satellite operator. The 51.4-52.4 GHz band is currently allocated domestically as a shared Federal/non-Federal band for fixed and mobile services. Internationally, the band is allocated to terrestrial fixed and mobile services and GSO FSS networks in the Earth-to-space direction on a co-primary basis. The ITU began studying this band for FSS use after the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference (“WRC-15”)'s approval of Resolution 162, which directed ITU-R to study the FSS spectrum needs and a possible FSS allocation in the 51.4-52.4 GHz band. These studies, which were completed shortly before WRC-19, concluded that “the additional allocation to FSS being considered is beneficial to make broadband connections more accessible to communities regardless of their geographical location and with more affordable costs as achieved by HTS (High Throughput Satellite) systems” and recommended adding an FSS allocation in the 51.4-52.4 GHz band for GSO networks, along with limits of unwanted emission power to ensure GSO compatibility with EESS (passive) operations in the 52.6-54.25 GHz band. WRC-19 adopted these limits and added an FSS allocation limited to GSO networks in the band.
58. Both before and after the adoption of Res. 750 (WRC-19), interested satellite parties have filed Petitions for Rulemaking to gain access to the band. In 2016, Boeing filed a Petition for Rulemaking to add a FSS Earth-to-space allocation and in 2020, the Satellite Industry Association submitted a Petition for Rulemaking asking the Commission to (1) adopt domestically the WRC-19 GSO FSS allocation in the 51.4-52.4 GHz band; and (2) expand this new allocation by making it available to NGSO FSS systems. The Commission has not acted on either of these requests.
59. The Commission observes that a robust record supporting use of this band for satellite communications has accumulated over the past 10 years. The Commission seeks comment on whether its proposal to grant access to the 51.4-52.4 GHz band by satellite operators would advance its goal for more efficient and intensive use of the band in the Earth-to-space direction. The Commission invites comment on creating a domestic FSS allocation in the band and whether use of the allocation should be limited to NGSO systems. Commenters should address current Federal and non-Federal uses of the band, opportunities for NGSO FSS deployment, and efficient coexistence measures to best protect incumbent or potential future services in these, adjacent bands, and the nearby 52.6-54.6 GHz band covered by Footnote US246 and international Footnote 5.340, including terrestrial and satellite operations and passive services. For example, the Commission seeks comment on whether limits on unwanted power emissions could ensure NGSO compatibility with ESS (passive) and space research (passive) operations in the 52.6-54.25 GHz band. The Commission also seeks comment on any changes to its part 25 rules that are needed to permit access to this band by satellite communications. Although global harmonization is not a prerequisite to Commission spectrum allocations or service rules, the Commission seeks comment on any tradeoffs of adopting service rules for this band in the absence of an international allocation for satellite communications.
60. The Commission also proposes to make the following frequency ranges in the so-called “W-band” available for use by satellite communications: 92.0-94.0 GHz, 94.1-100 GHz, 102.0-109.5 GHz, and 111.8-114.25 GHz, as requested by a satellite operator. The satellite operator argues that these frequency bands are well suited for satellite backhaul communications because they combine large bandwidth with high-gain, narrow “pencil beam” transmissions, allowing high-capacity backhaul while effectively allowing sharing of the spectrum with other users. It also argues that a proposal to add NGSO FSS uplink allocations in these bands would facilitate the future growth and innovation of next-generation satellite services and present a “first-mover advantage” for U.S.-licensed operators while encouraging other administrations to seek similar allocations for satellite communications in these bands.
• These W-band frequency ranges have unified allocations for Federal and non-Federal operations;
• The 92.0-94.0 GHz band has primary allocations for terrestrial fixed and mobile services, as well as radio astronomy and radiolocation services;
• The 94.1-95.0 GHz band has primary allocations for terrestrial fixed and mobile services, as well as radio astronomy and radiolocation services;
• The 95-100 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to fixed, mobile, radio astronomy, radiolocation, radionavigation, and radionavigation satellite services;
• The 102-105 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to fixed, mobile, and radio astronomy;
• The 105.0-109.5 GHz band has primary allocations for the fixed, mobile, radio astronomy, and space research (passive) services; and
• The 111.8-114.25 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis for the fixed, mobile, radio astronomy, and space research (passive) services.
61. All these bands are subject to Footnote US342, which states that all practicable steps must be taken to protect the radio astronomy service from harmful interference, and that emissions from spaceborne or airborne stations can be particularly serious sources of interference to the radio astronomy service.
62. The 92-94 GHz and 94.1-95 GHz bands are also subject to Footnote US161, which requires allocated
63. The Commission seeks comment on making changes to the U.S. Table of Allocations to provide allocations for FSS in any or all of these frequency bands, as well as any changes to its part 25 rules to effectuate such changes. The Commission seeks comment on whether granting access to these W-band frequencies by satellite operators would advance its goal for more efficient and intensive use of spectrum. The Commission invites comment whether use of the allocation should be limited individually licensed gateway stations in the Earth-to-space direction, and whether to limit use of these spectrum ranges to NGSO systems. Commenters should also address current Federal and non-Federal uses of the band, opportunities for NGSO FSS deployment, and potential coexistence measures to efficiently protect incumbent services or potential future services in these, or adjacent, bands, particularly Federal operations. The Commission is unaware of any technical studies that have been conducted to determine any limits of unwanted emission power to ensure protection of EESS (passive) and RAS operations in the 86-92 GHz, 100-102 GHz, 109.5-111.8 GHz, and 114.25-116 GHz bands (covered by Footnote US246 and international Footnote 5.340) or EESS (active) operations in the 94-94.1 GHz band. The Commission expects that any coexistence analysis would consider specific information about anticipated NGSO FSS gateway station operating parameters including deployment densities, earth station elevation angles, antenna characteristics (
64. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM and NPRM (collectively, document) assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the document. The Commission will send a copy of the document, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the document and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
65. The Commission sought comment in two prior NPRMs on ways the 12.7 GHz band, and the 42 GHz band could be used more efficiently and intensively by terrestrial wireless communications for innovation, economic growth, and to increase connectivity in the United States. A mixture of terrestrial wireless and satellite uses currently operate in the 12.7 GHz band as well as limited Federal operations. The 42 GHz band which is not currently used for any existing services in the United States, is allocated to non-Federal FS and MS on a primary basis, but not allocated to any satellite services. In addition, in
66. In the document, the Commission continues its efforts to promote technological innovation, to grow the nation's economy, and to facilitate increased connectivity for all Americans. The document seeks further comment on ways to use the 12.7 GHz band, the 42 GHz band, the 52 GHz band, and the W-band more efficiently and intensively. The document also seeks comment on using these bands more intensively for satellite communications, including as an alternative, or a complement to the previous proposals for terrestrial wireless communications in the band.
67. To achieve more intensive use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications, the document requests comment on removing existing regulatory restrictions, and opening the band to a wider range of satellite operations. For more intensive use of the 42 GHz band, the document requests comment on adding for the first time, an allocation for satellite communications in the fixed-satellite service (FSS). In addition, in the document, the Commission proposes creating a creating a domestic FSS allocation in the 52 GHz band and the W-band for more intensive use of those bands. While the Commission seeks to more efficiently and intensively expand use of these bands, it is also mindful of the continued need to protect incumbent spectrum users from the risk of harmful interference, and seeks comment on ways to protect incumbent spectrum users in the band, as well as ways to protect spectrum users, particularly Federal operators, in adjacent bands.
68. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, and § 1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411.
69. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small
70.
71. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
72. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”
73.
74.
75. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to fixed microwave services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in fixed microwave services. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in fixed microwave services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in part 101 of the Commission's rules for the specific fixed microwave services frequency bands.
76. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
84.
85.
86.
87. The Commission also asks whether increasing the use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications requires sunsetting or repacking of existing non-Federal terrestrial operations in the 12.7 GHz band, or whether increased use of the band by satellite communications can be accomplished under existing spectrum sharing obligations without sunsetting or repacking. Specifically, the Commission asks how might such repacking of BAS/CARS be accomplished, and how repacking might impact operations of primary spectrum users in the adjacent 12.2-12.7 GHz band. Additionally, the document seeks comment on whether the expanded use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications would be facilitated or accelerated by the deletion or sunsetting of Footnote NG53 to the Table of Allocations, which reserves sub-bands in the range of 13.15 GHz to 13.2125 GHz for television pick up and CARS inside a 50 kilometer radius of the top 100 television markets and prohibits non-geostationary satellite orbit fixed-satellite service gateway stations from operating in these locations in these sub-bands.
88. If repacking of existing non-Federal terrestrial operations in the 12.7 GHz is adopted, there could likewise be an economic impact on small and other satellite communications entities. Certain expenses will be placed on incumbent terrestrial operators, and the Commission may establish cost-sharing procedures between incumbent terrestrial operators and satellite communications operators. This process may require small entities that are incumbent terrestrial operators in the band to relocate their operations to different spectrum bands, potentially requiring reconfiguration or replacement of existing facilities, and to participate in negotiations to reassign their spectrum access rights, which would involve additional attendant costs for both terrestrial and satellite communications operators.
89.
90. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the TIG set up by NTIA could be a tool for exchanging electromagnetic compatibility studies between Federal systems and satellite communications in the 12.7 GHz band. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether OOBE limits on satellite communications or a buffer between satellite communications and Federal operations in adjacent bands could ensure that satellite communications protect Federal operations. If adopted, the above measures to protect Federal operations could impose reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance costs on small and other satellite communications entities.
91.
92. Small and other satellite communications entities could be required to comply with the licensing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of part 25, either in their existing form, or as changed as a result of this rulemaking. The document requests input on whether to license any space stations or earth stations in the 42 GHz band using its existing part 25 licensing procedures and technical rules; if any changes to the part 25 rules would be needed to accommodate use of the 42 GHz band by both geostationary and non-geostationary satellite orbit space stations; and limiting earth station operations in the 42 GHz band to individually licensed gateway stations, or whether ESIMs, or other blanket-licensed, non-gateway earth stations could be licensed in the 42 GHz band.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98. Compliance with any rule changes applicable to the 12.7 GHz, 42 GHz, and 52 GHz bands and W-band that may result in this proceeding may require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals. In particular, for small entities that are not existing operators, and do not have existing staffing dedicated to regulatory compliance, engineering and legal matters, hiring professional experts may be necessary to make the requisite filings, and to demonstrate compliance. Although the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with any potential rule changes at this time, the majority of the changes upon which comment is sought in the document involves removing restrictions on satellite communications in the 12.7 GHz band, potentially licensing satellite communications in the 42 GHz band, and interference avoidance techniques that have been established for satellite communications in other bands. Small entities with existing licenses in other bands may already be familiar with such policies and requirements, and have the processes and procedures in place to facilitate compliance resulting in minimal incremental costs to comply if similar requirements are adopted for this band. Consequently, for both bands, the Commission does not anticipate small and other satellite communications entities will incur any additional reporting, recording, or other compliance costs for such rule changes, if adopted. The Commission expects that the information it receives in comments and through cost-benefit analyses will help it identify and evaluate all relevant matters including compliance costs and other burdens on small entities.
99. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or
100. As part of its assessment of whether a more efficient and intensive use of the 12. GHz band can be accomplished by eliminating certain regulatory restrictions on the use of the band for satellite communications, the Commission is considering if there is a continued need for Footnote NG52 limits on GSO FSS in the 12.7 GHz band (Earth-to-space) for international systems. This limitation was designed to protect incumbent BAS, CARS, and fixed microwave operations from a large number of satellite earth station deployments. The document requests further comment on whether Footnote NG52 which satellite operators argue artificially limits FSS deployments in the 12.7 GHz band, is still needed to protect incumbent BAS, CARS, and fixed microwave operations in the 12.7 GHz band, or alternatively, if other means can be implemented to protect incumbent FS and MS operations in the band that would not unnecessarily restrict access to the band and realization of the associated economic opportunities small and other satellite operators could achieve with access to the band. As proposed by commentors, the document specifically considers, and seeks feedback on amending the text of Footnote NG52 to remove its applicability to the 12.7 GHz band in order to efficiently and expeditiously increase access to the 12.7 GHz portion by satellite communications. Other alternatives, the Commission considers in the document that could minimize the economic impact for small satellite communications entities is whether other changes to Footnote NG52, other footnotes, or to the part 25 rules or other Commission rule parts, are needed to eliminate regulatory restrictions that limit the use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications.
101. Economic impacts from the increased use of the 12.7 GHz band by satellite communications are most likely to arise from any sunsetting or repacking of existing terrestrial non-Federal users. Although the Commission considers and seeks comment on sunsetting or repacking of existing non-Federal terrestrial operations in the 12.7 GHz band, the Commission also seeks comment on whether increased use of the band by satellite communications can be accomplished under existing spectrum sharing obligations without sunsetting or repacking, an alternative which could avoid, or minimize, economic impacts on small and other BAS and CARS licensees.
102. In the document, the Commission's request for comment on the expansion of access to, and use of, the 12.7 GHz, 42 GHz, and 52 GHz bands and W-band to include satellite communications considers the feasibility of applying the existing part 25 application and licensing procedures, and technical rules, or alternatively, whether making rule modifications—removing or adding rules—are necessary. For example, the Commission seeks comment on limiting earth station operations in the 42 GHz band to individually licensed GSO and NGSO FSS gateway stations, or alternatively, whether ESIMs or other blanket-licensed, non-gateway earth stations can be licensed in the 42 GHz band. As discussed, the economic benefit for small and other satellite communications entities of using existing part 25 rules and processes, is the likelihood that they will incur minimal incremental costs since these entities may already have the processes and procedures in place to facilitate compliance. Further, if the application of certain part 25 are eliminated, small and other satellite communications entities stand to incur less administrative and potentially other compliance costs.
103. To assist with the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact on small entities that may result from the actions and alternatives that have been discussed in this proceeding, the document seeks alternative proposals, and requests information on the potential costs of such alternatives to small and other licensees. The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the document, including costs and benefits information. Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters could also help the Commission further minimize the economic impact on small entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final rules that are ultimately adopted.
104. None.
105. Accordingly,
106.
Administrative Conference of the United States.
Notice.
The Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States adopted three recommendations at its hybrid (virtual and in-person) Eighty-third Plenary Session: Agency Investigative Procedures; Consultation with State, Local, and Tribal Governments in Regulatory Policymaking; and Public Participation in Agency Adjudication.
For Recommendation 2025-1, Adam Cline; Recommendation 2025-2, Becaja Caldwell; and Recommendation 2025-3, Lea Robbins. For each of these recommendations the address and telephone number are: Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2080.
The Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C. 591-596, established the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Conference studies the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies and makes recommendations to agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States for procedural improvements (5 U.S.C. 594(1)). For further information about the Conference and its activities, see
The Assembly of the Conference met during its Eighty-third Plenary Session on June 12, 2025, to consider three proposed recommendations and conduct other business. All three recommendations were adopted.
Recommendation 2025-1,
Recommendation 2025-2,
Recommendation 2025-3,
The Conference based its recommendations on research reports and prior history that are posted at:
Many federal agencies are responsible for detecting, investigating, and prosecuting potential violations of the statutes and regulations they administer.
Statutes and agency rules govern how agencies allocate enforcement authority, including the authority to conduct investigations and direct the activities of
Agency investigative procedures vary depending on, among other things, the statutes to which the agency is subject and the rules the agency adopts to implement them, the severity and nature of violations the agency investigates, the availability of agency resources, the urgency of the need to respond to a particular situation, and the public interest. The formality of an investigation also can determine the methods used by an agency. For example, some agencies collect informal information or review information collected in the course of supervising regulated entities before determining whether to initiate a formal investigation. Other agencies, by contrast, conduct a more formal investigation almost immediately after learning of a possible violation, for example during a routine inspection.
Agencies may also solicit information and evidence from the subjects of investigations, using either voluntary or compulsory processes. Voluntary processes offer a subject an opportunity to present its position to the agency and present a holistic picture for the enforcement personnel upon receiving notice and before the agency moves forward with an action in an administrative or judicial tribunal.
Agencies differ in the discretion delegated to enforcement personnel in their investigative processes. For example, at some agencies, the authority to initiate investigations and carry out compulsory processes lies with agency heads or individual members of the agency, or other senior officials; other agencies give wide discretion to lower-level enforcement personnel for the same processes. Agency practices also vary in whether and when notice is provided to subjects of investigations, and in the agency's ability, and personnel authorized, to engage in negotiations and settlements or decide if an enforcement action is warranted. Some agencies utilize expedited settlement procedures, also termed fast-track settlement or pre-complaint settlement. Compared to traditional settlements, these processes typically are for minor and easily correctible violations, reduce penalties and minimize transaction costs while allowing agencies to achieve their enforcement goals, and save agency time and resources.
To improve the efficiency, effectiveness, fairness, and transparency of agency investigative procedures, this Recommendation provides best practices to agencies to prepare and, when appropriate, add to their publicly available enforcement manuals, (1) standards and processes regarding the authority of personnel to conduct investigations; (2) criteria used to determine whether to initiate an investigation; (3) notice, communication, and evidentiary procedures for the subjects of investigations, including compulsory processes; (4) criteria to consider when weighing evidence; and (5) criteria governing end-stage processes such as negotiation, settlement, no-action decisions, or the initiation of an action in an administrative or judicial tribunal.
1. Agencies should include in their enforcement manuals information about agency investigative procedures consistent with Recommendation 2022-5,
2. Agencies should determine, before taking investigative actions, such as using a compulsory process, whether and to what extent they may be required by statute or otherwise, to coordinate with another agency. Agencies should disclose in their enforcement manuals the circumstances in which and the extent to which they must coordinate with another agency when conducting an investigation.
3. Agencies should establish, and include in their enforcement manuals, procedures that clearly explain whether enforcement personnel may initiate investigations independently or whether they must first gain approval from a supervisor or other agency official.
4. Agencies should provide enforcement personnel with clear criteria to determine whether to proceed with an investigation.
5. When agencies seek information, either formally or informally, from the subjects of an initiated investigation, they should communicate to the subjects:
a. The scope and general nature of the investigation;
b. The potential violations of statutes or regulations being investigated;
c. The date by which the subject must submit the information or otherwise respond to the request, including procedures for requesting an extension of time;
d. Whether any challenge or appeal process exists regarding the request;
e. Whether the information is being sought through a compulsory or voluntary process; and
f. Whether refusal to provide the information sought may result in a compulsory process.
6. Agencies should develop clear procedures, and include such procedures in enforcement manuals, for facilitating the exchange of information and evidence between the subject of an investigation and the agency.
7. When agencies engage in compulsory processes, they should clearly specify the basis in law for their action and whether any conduct or forbearance of conduct by the subject gave rise to the action. Agencies should provide adequate time for the subjects of investigations to respond to compulsory processes before seeking judicial intervention.
8. Agency officials initiating a compulsory process under their delegated authority should notify the relevant agency head when they use such a process.
9. As applicable, agencies should establish processes for administrative review of decisions regarding compulsory processes. When agencies issue an order through a compulsory process, they should allow the subject of the compulsory process to seek higher agency review on an interlocutory basis or at least allow for review before the agency seeks judicial enforcement.
10. Agencies should provide, and include in their enforcement manuals, instructions to enforcement personnel on considering evidence for purposes of determining whether to initiate or recommend initiating an action in an administrative or judicial tribunal, including the standard of proof an agency must meet in administrative proceedings, whether that standard differs from the preponderance of the evidence standard used by federal district courts in civil cases, and where the burden of proof rests in particular cases.
11. Agencies should provide, and include in enforcement manuals, the relevant factors that enforcement personnel should consider,
12. Agencies should provide notice to the subjects of investigations before initiating an action in an administrative or judicial tribunal unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. The notice should include:
a. A statement that the agency has found substantial grounds for initiating an action against the subject based on alleged misconduct;
b. A detailed factual description of the alleged misconduct;
c. The legal basis for the action;
d. An invitation to respond to the evidence against the subject, as applicable;
e. Information about opportunities to submit additional evidence or argument before the agency initiates the action, as applicable; and
f. The forum and venue in which the action will take place.
13. When agencies terminate investigations, they should notify the subjects of investigations that they have done so unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.
14. Agencies should develop procedures, and include such procedures in enforcement manuals, for entering into negotiations with the subjects of investigations. Such procedures should specify considerations to assist enforcement personnel in determining whether and to what extent agencies should negotiate with the subject of an investigation, including:
a. Relevant agency policies or past practices;
b. The nature of the alleged misconduct;
c. Relevant past misconduct, if any, by the subject of the investigation;
d. Whether the subject of the investigation would be more likely, because of such negotiation, to come into compliance with the agency's interpretation of the regulation or statute at issue;
e. Whether an expedited settlement would adequately achieve agency goals within the scope of statutory authority while saving agency time and resources; and
f. Whether the public interest would weigh in favor of negotiating a settlement.
15. Agencies should provide, and include in enforcement manuals, the relevant factors for enforcement personnel to consider when determining whether settlement is appropriate and clearly state who at the agency can propose, discuss, or enter into settlement agreements.
Many federal actions significantly affect state, local, and tribal governments. When federal agencies engage in regulatory policymaking or take actions implementing regulatory policy that may affect state, local, or tribal governments, they should coordinate and consult with such governments as well as those organizations that represent those entities. For the purposes of this Recommendation, “regulatory policymaking” refers to the formulation and implementation of regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, guidance, issuance of permits and licenses, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more states, local governments, or Indian tribes; the relationship between the federal government and the states or Indian tribes; or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and the states or Indian tribes. Regulatory policymaking may also include the rescission of regulatory actions or policies. Although state, local, and tribal governments may participate in regulatory policymaking through notice-and-comment rulemaking and similar processes, those processes are not a substitute for direct consultation between governments. Further, while informal outreach can be a valuable source of information, it is not a substitute for an agency's consultation requirement.
Consultation with state and local governments promotes values of cooperative federalism. The relationship between the federal government and state and local governments is rooted in the nation's traditions and reflected in the Constitution's creation of a federal system. Within this scheme of constitutional federalism, there has long been an expectation that the federal government engage with state and local governments on regulatory policymaking and implementation.
Consultation with tribal governments reflects the unique government-to-government relationship between tribes and the United States and the federal policy of promoting tribal self-determination. Consultation may also reflect a tribal role in implementing statutory responsibilities in a cooperative federalism framework. Formal government-to-government consultation, which requires direct engagement between tribal governments and the United States, reflects a long history of intergovernmental relations that stretches back to the Founding. Today, tribal consultation is consistent with the “unique trust responsibility of the United States to protect and support Indian tribes and Indians”
For these reasons, the Administrative Conference has repeatedly emphasized the importance of effective consultation with state, local, and tribal governments. It has, among other things, encouraged agencies to develop internal policies and processes to better ensure timely consultation with state and local officials;
Consultation takes place according to several statutes and executive orders. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires agencies to “develop an effective process to permit offices of State, local, and tribal governments . . . to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant Federal intergovernmental mandates.”
Despite the framework of UMRA and Executive Orders 13132 and 13175, there remains great variety among agencies' rules, policies, and practices for consultation. For example, many agencies have adopted a publicly accessible tribal consultation policy and designated an official with principal responsibility for consultation with tribal governments. On the other hand, few agencies have adopted a publicly accessible state and local consultation policy or designated an official with principal responsibility for consultation with state and local governments. Agencies appear to have widely varying understandings of the purposes and goals of consultation generally and the potential benefits and costs of consultation in particular circumstances. And although there has been some convergence on common standards for tribal consultation, significant variations remain in agency policies and practices. This variety presents challenges to effective consultation between federal agencies and state, local, and tribal governments and can lead to misunderstandings and inefficiencies.
Recognizing the important benefits of consultation for federal regulatory policymaking and implementation, this Recommendation provides best practices to help agencies develop rules, policies, and practices that promote effective consultation with state, local, and tribal governments. It encourages agencies to be transparent about their policies, adopt practices that foster meaningful consultation, and establish mechanisms for assessing performance. In adopting the practices that follow, agencies must be mindful of their unique missions and demands on scarce resources. This Recommendation also identifies potential actions for consideration by OMB, consistent with its mission and resources, and by Congress, that may improve consultation between federal agencies and state, local, and tribal governments in regulatory policymaking and implementation.
1. Agencies that have regulatory policies or take actions that may have implications for or otherwise be of interest to state and local governments should designate a “federalism consultation official” who will serve as a primary point of contact for state and local governments seeking to consult or otherwise communicate with an agency and will have primary responsibility for coordinating consultations with state and local governments in regulatory policymaking and implementation.
2. Agencies, in consultation with state and local officials and organizations that represent them, should develop consultation policies that encourage candid, thorough, and timely exchange of views. Such policies should include:
a. The procedures for determining as a threshold matter whether a regulatory policy or action has federalism implications;
b. The circumstances in which consultation should occur, such as when:
i. There is a reasonable basis to find that a policy or action may impose federal intergovernmental mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 658(5)), or have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132;
ii. A state or local government requests consultation; or
iii. A regulatory policy or action may affect or otherwise be of interest to state or local officials;
c. Options for structuring consultation, including consultations on individual matters and standing advisory committees;
d. The procedures for consultation, including the notice, timing, and format of consultations (see Paragraphs 9 and 12), and considerations for determining whether the agency should engage in more than one consultation on a particular matter (see Paragraph 10), consistent with available resources and any need to act expeditiously;
e. The practices for ensuring that key staff and personnel who participate in and support a consultation understand the laws and policies governing consultation with state and local governments, the topics of the regulatory policy or action under consideration, issues the policy or action may raise for state and local communities, and the various positions of state and local government attendees;
f. The procedures the agency will use to communicate to state and local officials how the agency used their input; and
g. The procedures for keeping records of consultative activities, including documenting the status or outcome of each matter on which consultation occurred (see Paragraph 11).
3. Agencies should develop, make publicly available, and periodically update consultation web pages that provide easy access to:
a. The consultation policy described in Paragraph 2;
b. Contact information for the agency's designated federalism consultation official; and
c. Upcoming, ongoing, and recent consultation activities.
4. Agencies that have regulatory policies or take actions that may have implications for or otherwise be of interest to tribal governments should designate a “tribal consultation official” who will serve as a primary point of contact for tribal governments seeking to consult or otherwise communicate with the agency and will have primary responsibility for coordinating consultation with tribal governments in regulatory policymaking and implementation. In determining whom to designate, agencies should consider individuals with training on and experience with tribal sovereignty and governance, the Indian trust responsibility, and tribal cultures and histories.
5. Government-to-government consultation between tribal governments and federal agencies should be an opportunity for a two-way exchange of information and dialogue between high-level officials of tribal nations and the United States (see Paragraph 6(b)). In conducting formal government-to-government consultations with tribal governments, agencies should ensure that a high-level agency official attends such consultations. Agencies should clearly distinguish consultation from other forms of communication such as listening sessions and informal communications between agency officials and tribal officials, which also may be necessary and appropriate.
6. Agencies, in consultation with tribal governments and communication with authorized intertribal organizations, should develop consultation policies that encourage candid, thorough, and timely exchange of views. Such policies should include:
a. The procedures for determining as a threshold matter whether a regulatory policy or action has tribal implications, recognizing that tribes may have rights and interests beyond their current territories or reservations;
b. A definition of consultation that acknowledges the government-to-government relationship between tribal nations and the United States and recognizes tribal consultation as a timely two-way exchange of information and dialogue between official representatives of tribal nations and the United States;
c. A commitment to respecting tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, reserved rights, and other rights as well as the trust responsibility and the unique legal relationship between tribal nations and the United States and a commitment to considering tribal laws, traditions, and practices;
d. The circumstances in which consultation should occur, such as when:
i. There is a reasonable basis to find that a regulatory policy or action may impose federal intergovernmental mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 658(5)), or have tribal implications, as defined in Executive Order 13175;
ii. A tribal government requests consultation; or
iii. A regulatory policy or action may affect or otherwise be of interest to tribal nations;
e. Options for structuring consultation, including consultations on individual matters and standing advisory committees;
f. The procedures for consultation, including the notice, timing, and format of consultations (see Paragraphs 9 and 12); considerations for determining whether the agency should engage in more than one consultation on a particular matter (see Paragraph 10); and which federal agency personnel should attend consultations (see Paragraph 5), consistent with available resources and any need to act expeditiously;
g. The practices for ensuring that key staff and personnel who participate in and support a consultation understand the laws and policies governing consultation with tribal governments, the topics of the regulatory policy or action under consideration, issues the policy or action may raise for tribal communities, and the various positions of tribal government attendees;
h. The procedures the agency will use to communicate to tribal officials how the agency used their input; and
i. The procedures for keeping records of consultative activities, including documenting the status or outcome of each matter on which consultation occurred (see Paragraph 11) and responding to tribal requests that sensitive information be kept confidential.
7. Agencies should develop, make publicly available, and periodically update consultation web pages that provide easy access to:
a. The consultation policy described in Paragraph 6;
b. Contact information for the agency's designated tribal consultation official; and
c. Upcoming, ongoing, and recent consultation activities.
8. Agencies should ensure that their designated federalism consultation official and designated tribal consultation official communicate regularly with each other, as appropriate.
9. When agencies develop regulatory policies or take actions that may have federalism or tribal implications, they generally should consult with state, local, and tribal officials as early as feasible in the decision-making process, consistent with available resources and any need to act expeditiously. In the context of rulemaking, consultation normally should precede the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking. In other contexts—including the development of general policy statements, interpretive rules, other forms of guidance, and issuance of permits or licenses—consultation should occur early enough to ensure meaningful dialogue.
10. Consistent with Recommendation 2014-4,
a. The circumstances have changed materially since the initial consultation;
b. Significant issues or points of disagreement remain unresolved;
c. The proposed regulatory policy or action is complex or likely to be controversial;
d. A significant amount of time has elapsed such that the information collected during the initial consultation may be outdated;
e. Circumstances were such that prior consultations were not as effective as they could have been;
f. The potential benefits of subsequent consultation merit the commitment of scarce agency resources; and
g. Any need for the agency to act expeditiously, such as in the case of an emergency or when Congress has imposed a statutory deadline by which the agency must promulgate a rule or take other action.
11. When agencies propose or adopt regulations that have federalism or tribal implications, they should include the following information in the preamble to such regulations, unless precluded by laws governing confidentiality:
a. Which state, local, or tribal officials the agency contacted to solicit input as to whether a given regulatory policy or action may have federalism or tribal implications;
b. When such state, local, or tribal officials were contacted; and
c. What questions the agency asked such state, local, or tribal officials to ascertain whether a proposed regulatory policy or action would have federalism or tribal implications—and, if so, what implications—with respect to, among other things, budgetary considerations, effectiveness, and implementation.
12. Agencies should conduct consultations in such a way that they are accessible to the officials whom state, local, or tribal governments select to participate. When feasible and appropriate, agencies should utilize technology as a means to expand access to consultations for state, local, and tribal officials.
13. Agencies periodically should review consultations and assess their effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance with applicable laws and policies. Agencies should assign the responsibility for review to the federalism consultation official or tribal consultation official, as applicable, or to a dedicated agency working group.
14. In light of its past recognition of the need for a tribal advisor, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should consider establishing a tribal advisor, as well as a federalism advisor, to advise the Director of OMB regarding agency consultation activities and promote effective consultation practices.
15. OMB should issue guidance that encourages agencies to adopt the best practices identified in this Recommendation for consulting with state, local, and tribal governments in regulatory policymaking and implementation. OMB should develop such guidance in consultation with such governments.
16. In order to facilitate efficiency among agencies and to reduce potential costs, Congress should consider identifying the appropriate agency or agencies that would develop and make publicly available:
a. Lists of representative national organizations of state and local and tribal governments that agencies should contact respecting consultations;
b. Centralized websites where state, local, and tribal governments can learn about opportunities to consult with federal agencies.
17. Congress, in considering future amendments to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)), should include protecting certain information deemed sensitive by tribal governments and afford agencies discretion to safeguard information shared during tribal consultations.
Public participation can improve the quality, legitimacy, and accountability of agency decision making.
When agencies use adjudication to make policy, members of the public may offer information or views that can help agencies make more informed decisions. Public input can help improve the quality of adjudicative decisions by identifying problems that an agency has not anticipated, proposing solutions it has not considered, and identifying unintended consequences of
Just as in rulemaking, the APA permits “interested persons” to participate in agency adjudications “[s]o far as the orderly conduct of public business permits.”
Because agency adjudications vary significantly, agencies must consider their own circumstances in determining whether to provide opportunities for public participation in their adjudications. As a general matter, agencies must consider whether public input would be of value in deciding legal, policy, and factual questions that come before them for adjudication. To ensure that relevant interests and views are considered, public participation may be especially useful in agency adjudications that are influenced significantly by legislative facts (
In contrast, public participation is generally unnecessary when the parties themselves can provide all the relevant information and views, because the agency will have what it needs to make an accurate and informed decision.
Even when public input may be valuable, agencies must consider when and how to provide opportunities for participation by interested persons beyond the parties. Not all methods for public participation will be appropriate in all circumstances. For example, agency adjudications are often structured as multilevel proceedings (
Agencies may also find it is necessary to restrict participation to interested persons who have a direct stake in a particular adjudication. Although it may be beneficial in some adjudications to invite participation by the general public, in other adjudications, allowing participation beyond a limited set of interested persons may be repetitious, unduly complicate or delay the proceeding, require the unnecessary expenditure of resources by the agency or private parties, violate statutory confidentiality requirements, or adversely affect the rights or interests of private parties.
The Conference previously addressed public participation in agency adjudication in Recommendation 71-6,
This Recommendation expands on the Conference's previous recommendations by identifying best practices for public participation in agency adjudications in light of technological advancements and evolving methods for participating in agency decision making. In doing so, the Conference recognizes and emphasizes that agency practices must give due regard to the rights of the private parties in an adjudication—especially in regulatory enforcement proceedings—under the Constitution, the APA and other statutes, and basic principles of administrative fairness.
1. When appropriate, considering the variations in purpose, complexity, governing law, and degree of public interest in administrative adjudications, agencies should provide opportunities for public participation in their adjudications. This is particularly true when doing so would allow members of the public to protect affected interests or present information or views that are relevant and not otherwise represented in the adjudication, unless the agency reasonably determines that public participation would unduly complicate or delay the adjudication.
2. Agencies generally should allow and encourage public participation in agency adjudications that are significantly influenced by legislative facts (
3. When agencies provide opportunities for public participation in adjudications, they should do so early in the adjudicative process, especially when adjudications involve grants or denials of permission or other discretionary determinations involving large-scale public projects, to streamline the decision-making process while simultaneously ensuring that relevant interests and views are considered.
4. When adjudications may establish precedents or make important policy decisions in the resolution of routine claims or disputes, agencies should consider allowing interested persons to intervene as parties or submit amicus briefs. In developing or revising rules governing who may participate as an intervenor in a proceeding, agencies should use the factors listed in Recommendation 71-6,
5. When adjudications involve unusually complex or novel issues of law, fact, or discretion, agencies should develop mechanisms for intervention or amicus participation when doing so would be helpful to resolve the individual case or set agency-wide policy.
6. When adjudicating questions involving grants or denials of permission, such as permit applications, or nonadversarial discretionary policy matters involving, among other things, specific public projects, agencies should solicit public input by, for example:
a. Hosting public forums available through different media;
b. Convening focus groups;
c. Issuing requests for information in the
d. Conducting targeted outreach to facilitate opportunities for meeting with interested and potentially affected persons;
e. Using ombuds; and
f. Holding virtual or hybrid public meetings, hearings, and listening sessions with interested members of the public.
7. Agencies should determine whether there are opportunities for broader and more innovative forms of public engagement in their adjudicative processes that involve interactive discussion and ongoing dialogue between agencies and interested members of the public. For example, in appropriate circumstances, agencies should consider establishing procedures that provide opportunities for public participation by interested or affected persons prior to the filing of applications for grants or denials of permission, such as permit applications. Such enhanced forms of public participation may also be useful when adjudicating discretionary policy determinations regarding important public projects.
8. Agencies should publicize administrative adjudications that may affect members of the public, alert potentially affected persons that their interests may be at stake, and provide advance notice of available opportunities to participate in adjudications to interested members of the public through means that are likely to reach them, including, for example:
a. Social media posts;
b. Email alerts;
c. Press releases;
d.
e. Direct mailings and advertisements in the area where the affected public is located;
f. Targeted outreach to groups that are likely to be interested in and able to represent otherwise unrepresented interests and views; and
g. Coordination with other federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; and community-based organizations and businesses, trade and professional associations, advocacy groups, and other nongovernmental organizations that can help distribute and publicize information about administrative adjudications and available opportunities to participate to interested or potentially affected members of the public.
9. Agencies should establish and make available to the public procedural rules and general policies for public participation that address their practices for involving members of the public in their adjudications.
10. Agencies should maintain dedicated web pages that include: (a) explanatory materials that educate the public on how to participate effectively in administrative adjudications, and (b) information in plain language about opportunities for interested members of the public to participate in specific adjudications.
11. As appropriate and subject to available resources, agencies should provide the public with access to electronic dockets for individual cases that contain comprehensive information about all filings and decisions, as well as relevant public input, public comments, and reports or recommendations from federal advisory committees.
12. Agencies should solicit and collect feedback and suggestions from members of the public who have participated in their adjudications, as well as agency adjudicators and staff, about their experiences. Subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and any other legal requirements, agencies should consider using surveys, focus groups, listening sessions and other meetings, and online feedback forms and complaint portals. Agencies also should consider consulting with nongovernmental organizations, advocacy groups, and other private sector representatives who assist members of the public to obtain this information.
13. Agencies should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of their rules and policies addressing public participation in their adjudications, consider feedback from public participants and agency adjudicators and staff, and revise their rules and policies as appropriate.
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and reinstatement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) 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; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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 these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by July 28, 2025. 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
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a revised draft environmental assessment relative to permitting the release of the blister mite,
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 28, 2025.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Ms. Kirsten Dyer, Agriculturist, Pests, Pathogens and Biocontrol Permitting, Pest Exclusion and Import Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705; (352) 554-0556; email:
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing to issue permits for the release of the blister mite,
Russian thistle, or tumbleweed, is an alien weedy annual plant that infests about 41.3 million hectares (100 million acres) in the western United States. It is native to the mountainous regions of southwest Asia and was accidentally first introduced in the early 1870s in South Dakota. Since then, it has spread over most of the central and western United States and southern Canada. It grows primarily in fallow or disturbed soil, along roadsides and irrigation canals, and in waste areas in arid and semiarid zones. Russian thistle is listed as a noxious weed in five states and causes millions of dollars in damage by disrupting automobile traffic, clogging irrigation canals, displacing native plant species, providing habitat to insect pests of many fruits and vegetables, and is highly flammable, contributing to a rapid spread of wildfires.
Permitting the release of
Russian thistle is very difficult to control as current chemical, mechanical, and cultural controls are not effective against this widespread weed. However, Russian thistle is an excellent target for biological control as it has no close taxonomic relatives in North America. Classical biological control is a potentially useful management strategy for an invasive pest species whenever effective resident natural enemies are lacking in the new distribution range.
On March 10, 2009, APHIS published a draft EA
The revised draft EA may be viewed on the
The revised draft EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The West Virginia Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act, as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Monongahela National Forest within Greenbrier, Pocahontas, Randolph, Tucker, and Webster Counties, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
An in-person and virtual meeting will be held on Monday July 14, 2025, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. eastern daylight time, Thursday July 17, 2025, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. eastern daylight time, and Thursday July 31, 2025, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. eastern daylight time.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held in-person and virtually at the Monongahela National Forest Headquarters Building, First Floor Conference Room, located at 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, West Virginia 26241. RAC information and meeting details can be found at the following website:
Cindy Sandeno, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at (304) 635-4482 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Elect a Chairperson and Co-Chair;
2. Recommend a proportion of Title II funds for RAC administrative purposes;
3. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals;
4. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects;
5. Approve meeting minutes; and
6. Conduct other business as needed.
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under
Please contact the person listed under
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meetings.
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 that the Colorado Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will convene a virtual briefing examining antisemitism at University of Colorado at Denver, Community College of Denver and Metropolitan State University of Denver on July 16, 2025 at 2:00-4:00 p.m. MT. Additionally, the Committee will convene on July 31, 2025 at 2:00-3:00 p.m. MT for the purpose of debriefing testimony and planning for a third briefing.
Wednesday, July 16, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Time.
Thursday, July 31, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Time.
The meetings will be held via Zoom.
Ana Fortes, Designated Federal Official, at
Any interested member of the public may attend the meetings via the links above. Before adjourning the meetings, the committee chair will announce that any member of the public may make a brief oral statement, as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of meetings will include a list of persons who are present at meetings. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following scheduled meetings. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after each meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website:
Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed extension of the Current Population Survey Basic Demographics, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 26, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to Kyra Linse, Survey Director, Current Population Surveys at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Kyra Linse, Survey Director, Current Population Surveys via email at
The Census Bureau plans to request clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of basic demographic information on the Current Population Survey (CPS) beginning in November 2025. The current clearance expires October 31, 2025.
The CPS has been the source of official government statistics on employment and unemployment since 1942. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Census Bureau jointly sponsor the basic monthly survey. The Census Bureau also prepares and conducts all the field work. At the OMB's request, the Census Bureau and the BLS divide the clearance request in order to reflect the joint sponsorship and funding of the CPS program. BLS submits a separate clearance request for the portion of the CPS that collects labor force information for the civilian noninstitutional population. Some of the information within that portion includes employment status, number of hours worked, job search activities, earnings, duration of unemployment, and the industry and occupation classification of the job held the previous week. The justification that follows is in support of the demographic data.
The demographic information collected in the CPS provides a unique set of data on selected characteristics for the civilian noninstitutional population. Some of the demographic information we collect are age, marital status, sex, Armed Forces status, education, race, origin, and family income. We use these data in conjunction with other data, particularly the monthly labor force data, as well as periodic supplement data. We also use these data independently for internal analytic research and for evaluation of other surveys. In addition, we use these data as a control to produce accurate estimates of other personal characteristics.
The Census Bureau, in conjunction with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is conducting an experimental collection in the Current Population Survey (CPS) of Race and Ethnicity information using the new SPD15 standard. The main goal of the study is to assess the effect of the new race and ethnicity standard (2024 SPD15) on estimates obtained from the CPS. The study will also aid in the implementation of the new standard for interviewer-administered data collections (both in-person and by phone). The study will examine the impact of differences in reporting using the new 2024 standard and the 1997 standard (which CPS currently is using) on race distributions, labor force estimates, weighting, and missing data.
In July 2025, CPS began collecting race and ethnicity information using the 2024 SPD15 questions in rotations 2 through 8 to get a full representation for the initial analysis. From August 2025 onward, collection of race and ethnicity information will occur for every household in rotation 2 until the 2024 SPD15 based questions are fully implemented in the CPS. This will help reduce question-bias by not asking race in the same interview. To reduce respondent burden and to avoid introducing complexity to the production instrument, replacement households and new persons will not be asked 2024 SPD 15 questions. In addition, in August 2025 only, we plan to re-ask the 2024 SPD15 based questions for households in rotation 3 to analyze the consistency of reported races using the 2024 SPD 15 questions (as data using the 2024 SPD questions will be collected in both July 2025 and August 2025).
The CPS basic demographic information is collected from individual households by both personal visit and telephone interviews each month. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing. Households in the CPS are in sample for four consecutive months, and for the same four months the following year. This is called a 4-8-4 rotation pattern; households are in sample for four months, in a resting period for eight months, and then in sample again for four months.
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
Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed extension of the Survey of Construction: Questionnaire for Building Permit Official, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 26, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to William Abriatis, Chief, Residential Construction Branch, Economic Indicators Division, 301-763-3686, and
The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request a three-year extension of the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of the Questionnaire for Building Permit Official (SOC-QBPO). The Census Bureau uses the Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) electronic questionnaire SOC-QBPO to collect information from state and local building permit officials on: (1) the types of residential permits they issue, (2) the length of time a permit is valid, (3) how they store permits, and (4) the geographic coverage of the permit system. We need this information to carry out the sampling for the Survey of Housing Starts, Sales, and Completions (OMB number 0607-0110), also known as Survey of Construction (SOC). The SOC provides widely used measures of construction activity, including the Principal Economic Indicators: New Residential Construction, and New Residential Sales.
The current OMB clearance is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2026. We will continue to use the current CAPI questionnaire. The overall length of the interview will not change, and the sample size will remain the same.
The Census Bureau uses its field representatives to obtain information on the operating procedures of a permit office using the SOC-QBPO. The field representative visits the permit office, conducts interviews with office staff, and completes this electronic form.
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.
Notice.
This Notice describes the Department of Commerce's (the “DOC's”) plans to address criminally liable regulatory offenses under the May 9, 2025, Executive Order on Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.
George Leing (
On May 9, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (“E.O.”) 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations. 90 FR 20363 (published May 14, 2025). Section 7 of E.O. 14294 provides that within 45 days of the E.O., and in consultation with the Attorney General, each agency should publish guidance in the
Consistent with that requirement, the DOC advises the public that by May 9, 2026, the DOC, in consultation with the Attorney General, will provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a report containing: (1) a list of all criminal regulatory offenses
This notice also announces a general policy, subject to appropriate exceptions and to the extent consistent with law, that when the DOC is deciding whether to refer alleged violations of criminal regulatory offenses to DOJ, officers and employees of the DOC should consider, among other factors:
• the harm or risk of harm, pecuniary or otherwise, caused by the alleged offense;
• the potential gain to the putative defendant that could result from the offense;
• whether the putative defendant held specialized knowledge, expertise, or was licensed in an industry related to the rule or regulation at issue; and
• evidence, if any is available, of the putative defendant's general awareness of the unlawfulness of his conduct as well as his knowledge or lack thereof of the regulation at issue.
This general policy is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
On January 30, 2025, Lilly del Caribe, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 7K, in Carolina, Puerto Rico.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On January 3, 2025, Merck, Sharp & Dohme LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 49Y, in Rahway, New Jersey.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on polyester textured yarn from the People's Republic of China (China) and India would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders.
Applicable June 24, 2025.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2178.
On January 10, 2020, Commerce published in the
On June 24, 2025, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the
The merchandise covered by these
Excluded from the scope of these
The merchandise subject to these
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Mariana Fuentes, Ph.D., Florida State University, 3263 Foley Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32309, has applied in due form for a permit to take green (
Written comments must be received on or before July 28, 2025.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Erin Markin, Ph.D., or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant proposes to continue research and monitoring to study the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the Caribbean Oceanic Restoration and Education Foundation (Responsible Party: Rebecca Gibbel, DVM), has applied in due form for a permit to take pillar coral (
Written comments must be received on or before July 28, 2025.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Erin Markin, Ph.D. or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant proposes to conduct response activities for pillar coral in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). The objective of this project is to improve the survival of pillar coral by responding to incidents of damage or threats in the wild. Restoration practitioners would collect up to three colonies or parts of colonies annually. Colonies or fragments would be reattached or stabilized in the same location or at new locations within waters of the USVI. The permit is requested for 10 years.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to Daniel Costa, Ph.D., University of California at Santa Cruz, 130 McAlister Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 to conduct research on California sea lions (
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Sara Young or Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
On March 18, 2025, notice was published in the
The permit authorizes research on California sea lions throughout their range to investigate their foraging ecology, habitat use, and health. Research activities include: unmanned aircraft system, vessel and ground surveys for counts, photography, observations, and acoustic playbacks; captures, including sedation, anesthesia, restraint, morphometrics, marking, external instrument attachment, biological sampling, and ultrasound; and collection, import, export, and receipt of pinniped parts. Ten non-target species of non-ESA listed cetaceans and four non-target non-ESA listed species of pinnipeds may be disturbed during these studies. See the application for complete numbers of animals requested by species and procedure, including unintentional mortalities. The permit is valid until May 31, 2035.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
This action serves as a notice that NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), has found that
Evelyn Strombom, (301)-427-8633.
Pursuant to section 304(e)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(2), NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, must notify councils, and publish a notice in the
NMFS has determined that Atlantic blue marlin continues to be overfished. This determination is based on the most recent assessment completed in 2024, using data through 2022, and is consistent with the status determination criteria of both the domestic fishery management plan and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Standing Committee on Research and Statistics. NMFS continues to work with ICCAT on measures contained in the rebuilding plan.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Policy statement
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is issuing this policy statement to describe its plan to address criminally liable regulatory offenses.
This policy statement is applicable on June 27, 2025.
Dave Gettler, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
On May 9, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (“E.O.”) 14294,
The Bureau administers and civilly enforces Federal consumer financial law,
Where appropriate, the Bureau may refer alleged violations of these criminal regulatory offenses to the Department of Justice. For instance, in the course of an enforcement investigation, the Bureau may obtain credible evidence that a person has committed a criminal regulatory offense, and the Bureau may (where appropriate) refer such an offense to the Department of Justice.
In exercising discretion in making referrals of criminal regulatory offenses, Bureau officials will consider the following factors, among others:
• the harm or risk of harm, pecuniary or otherwise, caused by the alleged offense;
• the potential gain to the putative defendant that could result from the offense;
• whether the putative defendant held specialized knowledge, expertise, or was licensed in an industry related to the rule or regulation at issue; and
• evidence, if any is available, of the putative defendant's general awareness of the unlawfulness of his conduct as well as his knowledge or lack thereof of the regulation at issue.
Consistent with the E.O., the Bureau also intends to take the following steps to address criminal regulatory offenses:
• The Bureau will provide within 365 days of the E.O. (and in consultation with the Attorney General), a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) containing: (i) a list of all criminal regulatory offenses enforceable by the Bureau or the Department of Justice; and (ii) for each such criminal regulatory offense, the range of potential criminal penalties for a violation and the applicable mens rea standard for the criminal regulatory offense. The Bureau will simultaneously post this report on its web page and periodically (but not less than once a year) update the report.
• The Bureau will consider whether a criminal regulatory offense is included in this report when considering whether to make a criminal referral to the Department of Justice or, where applicable, to the Bureau's Inspector General.
• The Bureau will, in consultation with the Attorney General, examine the Bureau's statutory authorities and determine whether there is authority to adopt a background mens rea standard for criminal regulatory offenses that applies unless a specific regulation states an alternative mens rea. Within 30 days of the submission of the report described above, the Bureau, in consultation with the Attorney General, will submit a report to the Director of OMB summarizing the information submitted in the report described above and assessing whether the applicable mens rea standards for criminal regulatory offenses enforced by the agency are appropriate. If consistent with the statutory authorities identified pursuant to the review described above, the report will present a plan for changing the applicable mens rea standards and adopting a generally applicable background mens rea standard, and provide a justification for each criminal regulatory offense for which the Bureau proposes to deviate from its default mens rea standard.
• In all future notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) and final rules published in the
This is a general statement of policy under the Administrative Procedure Act.
This action does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of intent to prepare a draft feasibility study and environmental impact statement for the SAFER Initiative, Harris County, TX.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District (USACE) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the “Solutions for Advancing Floodplain Evaluation and Resilience” (SAFER) Initiative. The EIS would be prepared in association with a feasibility report prepared by a Non-Federal Interest (NFI)—the Harris County Flood Control District (Flood Control District) under authority granted by section 203 of Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986) (Pub. L. 99-662). The study will identify and evaluate structural and nonstructural alternatives to reduce the risk of flooding across eleven watersheds. This notice announces the USACE's intent to determine the scope of the issues to be addressed and identify the significant environmental issues (
Public scoping comments should be submitted on or before September 25, 2025, electronically or mailed as written letters. A minimum of ten scoping meetings will be held from July to August 2025. Public scoping meeting details can be found at
Submit all electronic public comments via email to:
Questions regarding the proposed Draft EIS can be addressed by contacting Mr. Danny Allen by phone at 512-461-6579, or by email at
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a proposed information collection that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments regarding this proposed collection must be received on or before July 28, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Beth Kelly, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, (202) 246-6500, or
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 23, 2025, by Jeffrey Novak, Acting General Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. This document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
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, 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 June 24, 2025, the Commission issued an order in Docket Nos. EL25-32-000, EL25-33-000, EL25-34-000, and EL25-35-000 pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether Darby Power, LLC, Gavin Power, LLC, Lawrenceburg Power, LLC and Waterford Power, LLC's Rate Schedules are unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.
The refund effective date in Docket Nos. EL25-32-000, EL25-33-000, EL25-34-000, and EL25-35-000 established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket Nos. EL25-32-000, EL25-33-000, EL25-34-000, and EL25-35-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2024), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating status using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for each project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. The applications are not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. Project
The Trego Project consists of the following existing facilities: (1) a 435.2-acre reservoir; (2) a 642-foot-long, 43.5-foot-high concrete dam; (3) a 59.5-foot-long, 74-feet-high powerhouse containing two James Leffel Company vertical Francis-type turbines with a total generating capacity of 1.2 megawatts; (4) a tailwater; and (5) a 49-foot-long transmission line.
Northern States Power is not proposing any changes to project facilities or operation.
m. The applications can be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
n. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595, or
o. Scoping Process
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Commission staff intends to prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) (collectively referred to as the “NEPA document”) that describes and evaluates the probable effects, including an assessment of the site-specific and cumulative effects, if any, of the proposed action and alternatives. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission issues an EA or an EIS. At this time, we do not anticipate holding an on-site scoping meeting. Instead, we are soliciting written comments and suggestions on the preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the NEPA document, as described in scoping document 1 (SD1), issued xx.
Copies of the SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the NEPA document were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, Commission staff reviewed Lake Upchurch Dam Preservation Association's application for surrender of exemption for the Raeford Hydroelectric Project No. 6619 and have prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed surrender, alternatives to the proposed action, and concludes that the proposed surrender would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
All comments must be filed by August 6, 2025.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members, and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
For further information, contact Kelly Fitzpatrick at 202-502-8435 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following complaints and compliance filings in EL Dockets:
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
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
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a Draft General Conformity Determination Reevaluation (GCD Reevaluation) for the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (Project), proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced dockets. The Draft GCD Reevaluation was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Draft GCD Reevaluation assesses the potential air quality
• 10.2 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline loop
• 3.4 miles of 26-inch-diameter pipeline loop in Middlesex County, New Jersey (the Madison Loop);
• 23.5 miles of 26-inch-diameter pipeline loop onshore and offshore in Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey and Queens and Richmond Counties, New York (Raritan Bay Loop);
• modification of existing Compressor Station 200 in Chester County, Pennsylvania;
• new Compressor Station 206 in Somerset County, New Jersey; and
• ancillary facilities.
The Draft GCD Reevaluation identifies that all emissions above the General Conformity applicability thresholds from construction of the Project are expected to occur in New York and New Jersey within the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Interstate Air Quality Control Region. The draft GCD Reevaluation concludes that the Project would achieve conformity with the New York and New Jersey State Implementation Plans through the purchase of emission reduction credits of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds to offset Project emissions.
The Draft GCD Reevaluation is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (
In accordance with the General Conformity Regulations under the Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 40 Part 93.156, the Draft GCD Reevaluation is issued for a 30-day comment period. Any person wishing to comment on the Draft GCD Reevaluation may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the Draft GCD Reevaluation in the Final GCD Reevaluation, it is important that the Commission receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 24, 2025.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket numbers (CP17-101-007 and CP20-49-001) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Notice of the forthcoming regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC), is hereby given in accordance with the provisions of the Bylaws of the FCSIC.
10 a.m., Wednesday, July 9, 2025.
You may observe the open portions of this meeting in person at 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, or virtually. If you would like to virtually attend, at least 24 hours in advance, visit
If you need more information or assistance for accessibility reasons, or have questions, contact Ashley Waldron, Secretary to the Board. Telephone: 703-883-4009. TTY: 703-883-4056.
Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public. The following matters will be considered:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 26, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The Commission allocated spectrum and set stringent regulations for a “Wireless Medical Telemetry Service,” ensuring that critical medical equipment operates free from interference. Medical telemetry equipment is essential in hospitals and healthcare facilities, transmitting vital patient data—such as pulse and respiration rates—directly to nearby receivers. This technology not only enhances patient mobility but also significantly improves their comfort. It is crucial for advancing healthcare delivery.
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
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.
This demonstration will assist in developing improved procedures for the identification, investigation, and prosecution of potential Medicare fraud. The demonstration will ensure that payments for IRF services are appropriate through either pre-claim or postpayment review, thereby working towards the prevention and identification of potential fraud, waste, and abuse, as well as protecting the Medicare Trust Funds from improper payments while reducing Medicare appeals. CMS plans to continue the demonstration in Alabama and Pennsylvania, then expand to Texas, and California. After the initial four states, CMS will expand the demonstration to include the IRFs in any state that bill to Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) jurisdictions JJ, JL, JH, and JE.
2.
This collection of information is necessary to provide adequate and timely health care quality information for consumers, regulators, and Exchanges in the initial years of Exchange implementation. It is also necessary to collect information to appropriately monitor and provide a process for a survey vendor to appeal HHS' decision to not approve a QHP Enrollee Survey vendor application.
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 must be received by August 26, 2025.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2. By
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 N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the 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 requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Specifically, under the proposal a physician practice disclosing group practice noncompliance will submit an SRDP form consisting of the following components: (1) the SRDP Disclosure Form, (2) a single Group Practice Information Form covering all the physicians in the practice who made prohibited referrals to the practice, and (3) a Financial Analysis Worksheet. All other entities will continue to submit disclosures using the SRDP Disclosure Form, separate Physician Information Forms for each physician covered in the self-disclosure, and a Financial Analysis Worksheet.
2.
Anyone can file a complaint if he or she suspects a potential violation. Persons believing that a covered entity is not utilizing the adopted Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA are voluntarily requested to file a complaint with CMS via the Administrative Simplification Enforcement and Testing Tool (ASETT) online system, by mail, or by sending an email to the HIPAA mailbox at
This standard form collects identifying and contact information of the complainant, as well as the identifying and contact information of the filed against entity (FAE). This information enables CMS to respond to the complainant and gather more information if necessary, and to contact the FAE to discuss the complaint and CMS' findings.
3.
Section 1194(e)(2) of the Act requires CMS to consider certain data on selected drugs and their alternative treatments. Because the statute does not specify where these data come from, CMS will allow for optional submission from Primary Manufacturers and the public for drugs selected for negotiation or renegotiation. CMS will additionally review existing literature, conduct internal analyses, and consult subject matter and clinical experts on the factors listed in section 1194(e)(2) of the Act. Manufacturers may optionally submit this information as part of their Negotiation Data Elements Information Collection Request Form. The public may also optionally submit evidence about the selected drugs and their alternative treatments.
Section 1194(b)(2)(C) of the Act provides that if the Primary Manufacturer does not accept CMS' written initial offer, the Primary Manufacturer may submit an optional written counteroffer no later than 30 days after the date of receipt of CMS' written initial offer. If the Primary Manufacturer chooses to develop and submit a written counteroffer to CMS' written initial offer during the drug price negotiation or renegotiation process for initial price applicability year 2028, the Primary Manufacturer must submit the Counteroffer Form.
Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS.
Notice.
This notice acknowledges the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services' (the Secretary's) receipt and review of Battelle Memorial Institute's, the consensus-based entity (CBE) under a contract with the Secretary, 2024 Annual Activities Report to Congress, as mandated by section 1890(b)(5) of the Social Security Act (the Act). The Secretary has reviewed CBE's 2024 Annual Report and is publishing the report in the
Charlayne Van, (410) 786-8659.
The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has long recognized that a high functioning health care system that provides higher quality care requires accurate, valid, and reliable measurement of quality and efficiency. The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) (Pub. L. 110-275) added section 1890 of the Social Security Act (the Act), which requires the Secretary of HHS (the Secretary) to contract with a consensus-based entity (CBE) to perform multiple duties to help improve performance measurement. Section 3014 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable Care Act) (Pub. L. 111-148) expanded the duties of the CBE to help in the identification of gaps in available measures and to improve the selection of measures used in health care
Section 1890(b) of the Act requires the following:
• The implementation of quality and efficiency measurement initiatives and the coordination of such initiatives with quality and efficiency initiatives implemented by other payers;
• Recommendations on an integrated national strategy and priorities for health care performance measurement;
• Performance of the CBE's duties required under its contract with the Secretary;
• Gaps in endorsed quality and efficiency measures, including measures that are within priority areas identified by the Secretary under the national strategy established under section 399HH of the Public Health Service Act (National Quality Strategy), and where quality and efficiency measures are unavailable or inadequate to identify or address such gaps;
• Areas in which evidence is insufficient to support endorsement of quality and efficiency measures in priority areas identified by the Secretary under the National Quality Strategy, and where targeted research may address such gaps; and
• The convening of multi-stakeholder groups to provide input on: (1) the selection of quality and efficiency measures from among such measures that have been endorsed by the CBE and such measures that have not been considered for endorsement by the CBE but are used or proposed to be used by the Secretary for the collection or reporting of quality and efficiency measures; and (2) national priorities for improvement in population health and the delivery of health care services for consideration under the National Quality Strategy.
Section 50206(c)(1) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-123) amended section 1890(b)(5)(A) of the Act to require the CBE's annual report to Congress to include the following: (1) an itemization of financial information for the previous fiscal year ending September 30th, including annual revenues of the entity, annual expenses of the entity, and a breakdown of the amount awarded per contracted task order and the specific projects funded in each task order assigned to the entity; and (2) any updates or modifications to internal policies and procedures of the entity as they relate to the duties of the CBE including specifically identifying any modifications to the disclosure of interests and conflicts of interests for committees, work groups, task forces, and advisory panels of the entity, and information on external stakeholder participation in the duties of the entity.
The CBE must also annually provide a report to Congress and the Secretary under section 1890(b)(5)(A) of the Act. Section 1890(b)(5)(B) of the Act provides that no later than 6 months after receiving the annual report, the Secretary shall review such report; and publish such report in the
This
As part of its core mission, HHS seeks to stabilize and improve the quality of health care throughout the country. In response to recent public health crises and to prudently prepare for imminent threats in the future, it is clear that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must continue to focus on advancing better health care for all Americans, strengthening public trust, and building meaningful engagement and learning across the health care system. By embedding the cross-cutting principles
HHS appreciates the efforts that the CBE has made to support our mutual commitment to promoting a resilient, high value, and safe health care system for all Americans. In 2024, HHS supported the work conducted by the CBE to establish a measure review process that is reliable, transparent, attainable, objective and meaningful. This aligns with both Battelle and HHS' commitment to engaging all populations in health care quality improvement. As the CBE in 2024, Battelle continued to use rigorous standards to review measures for quality measure endorsement and maintain highly reliable and scientifically sound measures across priority health care topic areas.
In 2024, the CBE continued its focus on four key initiatives: Endorsement & Maintenance (E&M) of clinical quality measures, Pre-Rulemaking Measure Review (PRMR), Measure Set Review (MSR) and Core Quality Measures Collaborative (CQMC).
During 2024, Battelle reviewed all measures that were submitted for endorsement consideration for the Fall 2023 and Spring 2024 E&M cycles. Battelle enhanced its focus on advancing measurement science, ensuring transparency and increasing the number of perspectives engaged in the process. This led to greater involvement from patients, advocacy groups, and clinicians, fostering a shared sense of ownership and commitment to quality improvement.
Measures submitted for endorsement addressed critical areas like patient safety, clinical effectiveness, health access, and cost reduction. The E&M committee identified gaps in quality measurement and provided feedback on how the process could further evolve. In addition to committee feedback, Battelle also identified the need for better guidance in developing measure logic models, quantifying burden and explaining the value of a measure on the system. As the health care landscape evolves, Battelle remains dedicated to advancing quality and reducing burden through continuous improvement and innovation.
In Fall 2023, Battelle introduced a streamlined 6-month E&M process that enhances consensus-building and ensures balanced participation. Following public and interested party feedback, the Spring 2024 cycle saw significant improvements to increase engagement and reduce committee burden. Improvements included separate meetings for Advisory Groups, a Public Comment Listening Session for broader input, and a revised voting structure emphasizing the Recommendation Group's role.
During the 2024-2025 cycle for PRMR, the committee expanded from 155 to 175 members while maintaining patient and clinician representation. To enhance measure review and public comment collection, PRMR meetings were shifted to the beginning of the calendar year. This change led to a record number of public comments, with 239 written submissions and 51 verbal comments from 234 professional organizations and 56 patients/patient representatives. Listening sessions attracted over 458 attendees across three sessions.
In 2024, the MSR Recommendations Group evaluated 35 measures in the Affordability and Efficiency domain across 10 CMS programs. Unlike the previous MSR cycle, which focused solely on the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Improvement Program (ESRD QIP), the 2024 cycle adopted a holistic, cross-program review approach. This was guided by the Cascade of Meaningful Measures, a tool that organizes the CMS measure portfolio around the eight priorities of Meaningful Measures 2.0. The group recommended discontinuing six measures and continuing 29, following an open and productive discussion with CMS that provided valuable feedback on each measure.
The CBE convened the CQMC Full Collaborative in late 2023 to set priorities for the upcoming year. The goal of the meeting was to explore the CQMC's role in three key areas, including measurement in closing care gaps, movement to digital measures and alignment around measurement models. In addition, the CQMC discussed the leading barriers to adoption of measures within the core sets and achieving the desired impact of the core sets and how these can be overcome. The CQMC also began to develop a vision and strategy for the next phases of work. In October 2024, Battelle hosted the CQMC Full Annual Strategic Meeting to review progress and set priorities for the coming year. As of December 2024, the core measure sets include:
• Accountable Care Organizations;
• Patient-Centered Medical Homes;
• Primary Care;
• Behavioral Health;
• Cardiology;
• Gastroenterology;
• HIV & Hepatitis C;
• Medical Oncology;
• Neurology;
• Obstetrics & Gynecology;
• Orthopedics; and
• Pediatrics.
HHS and the CBE both recognize the importance of clinical quality and cost/resource use measures in improving U.S. health care. Maintaining these measures through transparent, periodic, and consensus-based reviews is critical for ensuring health care quality performance can not only be measured but can also be improved upon. The CBE is dedicated to building essential relationships within the health care quality community, including patients and clinicians, for advancing the national goal of attaining the highest level of health and wellness for the widest range of individuals possible.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
In this Addendum, we are publishing the
Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting a 3-year extension of the Tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Data Report, Tribal TANF Annual Report, and Tribal TANF Reasonable Cause/Corrective Action Documentation Process (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #0970-0215, expiration June 30, 2025). There are minor changes requested to the form.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports Agency regulations in part 118 (21 CFR part 118), Production, Storage, and Transportation of Shell Eggs, and Form FDA 3733, Shell Egg Producer Registration Form. The Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make and enforce such regulations as “are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States . . . or from one State . . . into any other State” (section 361(a) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264(a))). This authority has been delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Under section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)), a food is adulterated if it is prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health. Under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), FDA is authorized to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
Under part 118, shell egg producers are required to implement measures to prevent SE from contaminating eggs on the farm and from further growth during storage and transportation. Shell egg producers also are required to maintain records concerning their compliance with part 118 and to register with FDA. As described in more detail about each information collection provision of part 118, each farm site with 3,000 or more egg-laying hens that sells raw shell eggs, other than directly to the consumer, must refrigerate, register, and keep certain records. Farms that do not send all of their eggs to treatment are also required to have an SE prevention plan and to test for SE.
Section 118.10 of FDA's regulations requires recordkeeping for all measures a farm takes to prevent SE in its flocks. Since many existing farms participate in voluntary egg quality assurance programs, those respondents may not have to collect any additional information. Records are compiled and retained at each farm site and examined there periodically by FDA inspectors. Section 118.10 also requires each farm site with 3,000 or more egg-laying hens that sells raw shell eggs to the table egg market, other than directly to the consumer, and does not have all of the shell eggs treated, to design and implement an SE prevention plan. Section 118.10 requires recordkeeping for each of the provisions included in the plan and for plan review and modifications if corrective actions are taken.
Finally, § 118.11 (21 CFR 118.11) of FDA's regulations requires that each farm covered by § 118.1(a) register with FDA using Form FDA 3733. The term “Form FDA 3733” refers to both the paper version of the form and the electronic system known as the Shell Egg Producer Registration Module, which is available at
Recordkeeping and registration are necessary for the success of the SE prevention measures. Written SE prevention plans and records of actions taken due to each provision are essential for farms to implement SE prevention plans effectively. Further, they are essential for us to be able to determine compliance. Information provided under these regulations helps us to quickly notify the facilities that might be affected by a deliberate or accidental contamination of the food supply. In addition, data collected through registration is used to support our enforcement activities.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Our estimates for the recordkeeping burden and the reporting burden are based on our experience with similar recordkeeping activities and the number of registrations and cancellations received in the past 3 years. Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval,
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites
This information collection supports FDA regulations. Tobacco products are governed by chapter IX of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (sections 900 through 920) (21 U.S.C. 387 through 21 U.S.C. 387t). The FD&C Act provides FDA with the authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors. FDA has the authority to issue regulations deeming other products that meet the statutory definition of a tobacco product to be subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act (section 901(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387a(b))). In accordance with that authority, FDA issued a rule deeming all products that meet the statutory definition of tobacco product, except accessories of newly deemed tobacco products, to be subject to FDA's tobacco product authority (81 FR 28974, May 10, 2016). The definition of the term “tobacco product” in section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)) products that contain nicotine from any source. As a result, non-tobacco nicotine (NTN) products (
Chapter IX of the FD&C Act applies to regulated tobacco products, including sections 904(a)(3) and (c)(1) (21 U.S.C. 387d(a)(3) and (c)(1)). Section 904(a)(3) of the FD&C Act requires the submission of an initial report from each tobacco product manufacturer or importer, or agents thereof, listing all constituents, including smoke constituents as applicable, identified as a harmful and potentially harmful constituent (HPHC) to health by FDA. Reports must be by brand and by quantity in each brand and subbrand.
Section 904(c)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that manufacturers of tobacco products not on the market as of June 22, 2009, must also provide the information reportable under section 904(a)(3) of the FD&C Act at least 90 days prior to introducing the product into interstate commerce.
FDA has taken several steps to identify HPHCs to be reported under section 904 of the FD&C Act, including issuing a guidance discussing FDA's current thinking on the meaning of the term “harmful and potentially harmful constituent” in the context of implementing the HPHC list requirement under section 904(e) of the FD&C Act (76 FR 5387, January 31, 2011, revised guidance issued August 2016). The guidance is available on the internet at
The purpose of the information collection is to collect statutorily mandated information regarding HPHCs in certain tobacco products and tobacco smoke, by brand and by quantity in each brand and subbrand.
To facilitate the submission of HPHC information, Forms FDA 3787a-j, for cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products, and RYO tobacco products, respectively, in both paper and electronic formats, are available. Additionally, FDA is developing forms to facilitate the submission of HPHC information for the deemed tobacco products. We intend to model these forms on the current HPHC reporting forms (
Manufacturers or importers, or their agents, will be able to submit HPHC information either electronically through new web forms within the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) Portal Next Generation or in paper format. The modernized web forms will streamline data entry and submission for reporting HPHCs for cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products, and RYO tobacco products. This process will be more efficient than the current approach, which requires the use of the FDA's eSubmitter Desktop Tool for data entry and the CTP Portal web application for submission. With CTP Portal Next Generation, necessary tasks will be completed directly within the web forms, making HPHC submissions more user-friendly.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We have revised our burden estimates to this information collection request. Our burden estimates have been updated based on the assumption that “Each respondent represents a statutory tobacco product that receives authorization from FDA for which manufacturers and importers (or their agents), must report their product information to FDA under section 904(c)(1) of the FD&C Act at least 90 days prior to delivery for introduction into interstate commerce for all new products.” Under this assumption, the number of respondents is equal to the number of total annual responses FDA estimated from previous submissions. This assumption will facilitate future burden estimates, allow us to refine the estimated burden to include only the products that need to report HPHCs under section 904(c)(1) of the FD&C Act, and avoid data suppression issues with disaggregated Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau data.
• Cigarette—section 904(c)(1) Reporting of Manufacturer/Importer Company and Product Information by Completing Submission Forms/Testing of HPHC is reflecting a reduction in 137 respondents from 380 to 243.
• Roll Your Own Tobacco Product—section 904(c)(1) Reporting of Manufacturer/Importer Company and Product Information by Completing Submission Forms is reflecting a reduction in 9 respondents from 19 to 10.
• Smokeless—section 904(c)(1) Reporting of Manufacturer/Importer Company and Product Information by Completing Submission Forms is reflecting an increase in 7 respondents from 25 to 32.
The cumulative changes to the estimated burden for this information collection reflects an overall decrease of 6,727 burden hours and a corresponding decrease of 139 responses.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports FDA regulations. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), to require, among other things, domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food for human or animal consumption in the United States to register with FDA. Sections 1.230 to 1.235 of our regulations (21 CFR part 1) set forth the requirements for the registration of food facilities. Information provided to us under these regulations helps us to quickly notify the facilities that might be affected by a deliberate or accidental contamination of the food supply. In addition, data collected through registration is used to support FDA enforcement activities and to screen imported food shipments.
Advanced notice of imported food allows FDA, with the support of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to target import inspections more effectively and help protect the nation's food supply against terrorist acts and other public health emergencies. If a facility is not registered or the registration for a facility is not updated when necessary, we may not be able to contact the facility and may not be able to target import inspections effectively in case of a known or potential threat to the food supply or other food-related emergency, putting consumers at risk of consuming hazardous food products that could cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
To assist respondents of the information collection we developed the following forms. Each facility that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food for human or animal consumption in the United States must register with FDA using Form FDA 3537 entitled “Food Facility Registration” (§ 1.231), unless exempt under § 1.226 from the requirement to register. To cancel a registration, respondents must use Form FDA 3537a entitled “Cancellation of Food Facility Registration” (§ 1.235). The terms “Form FDA 3537” and “Form FDA 3537a” refer to both the paper version of each form and the electronic system known as the Food Facility Registration Module, which is available at
Registration is one of several tools under the Bioterrorism Act that enables us to act quickly in responding to a threatened or actual bioterrorist attack on the U.S. food supply or other food-related emergency. Further, in the event of an outbreak of foodborne illness, the information provided helps us determine the source and cause of the event and enables us to quickly notify food facilities that might be affected by an outbreak, terrorist attack, or other emergency. Finally, the registration requirements enable us to quickly identify and remove from commerce an article of food for which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to such article of food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have increased our burden estimate by 83,393 hours (from 278,382 to 361,775), although the number of responses decreased by 19,122 (from 279,927 to 260,805). Among other considerations, we attribute this adjustment primarily due to a significant increase in the number of foreign facility registrations and updates submitted coupled with a drastic decrease in the number of cancellations and third-party registration and U.S. Agent verifications submitted.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Antibacterial Therapies for Patients With an Unmet Medical Need for the Treatment of Serious Bacterial Diseases—Questions and Answers.” This guidance assists in the clinical development of new antibacterial drugs to treat serious bacterial diseases in patients with unmet medical needs, including patients with a serious bacterial disease for which effective antibacterial drugs are limited or lacking. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Antibacterial Therapies for Patients With an Unmet Medical Need for the Treatment of Serious Bacterial Diseases—Questions and Answers (Revision 1)” issued on May 24, 2022.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Ramya Gopinath, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Bldg. 22, Rm. 6150, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-5328.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Antibacterial Therapies for Patients With an Unmet Medical Need for the Treatment of Serious Bacterial Diseases—Questions and Answers.” The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) provides several regulatory programs that are intended to expedite development and review of drugs for serious conditions. For example, section 3042 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255) established the limited population pathway for antibacterial and antifungal drugs (LPAD), to facilitate the development of certain drugs that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening infection in a limited population of patients with unmet medical needs. The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the clinical development of new antibacterial drugs to treat serious bacterial diseases in patients with unmet medical needs. FDA considered the applicability of Executive Order 14192, per OMB guidance in M-25-20, and finds this action to be deregulatory in nature.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Antibacterial Therapies for Patients With an Unmet Medical Need for the Treatment of Serious Bacterial Diseases—Questions and Answers (Revision 1)” issued on May 24, 2022 (87 FR 31568). FDA provided clarifying edits to the final guidance and included additional information after considering comments received on the draft guidance. Edits included deleting the nested noninferiority trials/superiority clinical trials section because of difficulty in interpreting such trials, updating the add-on superiority trial design section, and updating to include subjects with infections across body sites in trials.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Antibacterial Therapies for Patients With an Unmet Medical Need for the Treatment of Serious Bacterial Diseases—Questions and Answers.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for the submissions of investigational new drug applications, including clinical trial design, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 pertaining to the submissions of new drug applications have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information in the guidance for industry entitled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0765. The collections of information in 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 for the content and format requirements for labeling of drugs and
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports Food and Drug Administration guidance. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
Tobacco products are governed by chapter IX of the FD&C Act (sections 900 through 920) (21 U.S.C. 387 through 387t). Section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), as amended, defines a tobacco product as “any product made or derived from tobacco or containing nicotine from any source that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).”
The FD&C Act, requires that before a new tobacco product may be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, the new tobacco product must undergo premarket review by FDA. FDA must issue an order authorizing the commercial distribution of the new tobacco product or find the product exempt from the requirements of substantial equivalence under section 910(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act, before the product may be introduced into commercial distribution.
FDA has established a pathway for manufacturers to request exemptions from the substantial equivalence requirements of the FD&C Act in § 1107.1 (21 CFR 1107.1) of the Agency's regulations. As described in § 1107.1(a), FDA may exempt tobacco products that are modified by adding or deleting a tobacco additive, or increasing or decreasing the quantity of an existing tobacco additive, from the requirement of demonstrating substantial equivalence if the Agency determines that: (1) the modification would be a minor modification of a tobacco product that can be sold under the FD&C Act, (2) a report demonstrating substantial equivalence is not necessary to ensure that permitting the tobacco product to be marketed would be appropriate for the protection of public health, and (3) an exemption is otherwise appropriate.
Section 1107.1(b) states that a request for exemption under section 905(j)(3) of the FD&C Act may be made only by the manufacturer of a legally marketed tobacco product for a minor modification to that tobacco product and that the manufacturer must submit the request and all information supporting it to FDA. The request must be made in an electronic format that FDA can process, review, and archive (or a written request must be made by the manufacturer explaining in detail why the manufacturer cannot submit the request in an electronic format and requesting an alternative means of submission to the electronic format).
An exemption request must contain: (1) The manufacturer's address and contact information; (2) identification of the tobacco product(s); (3) a detailed explanation of the purpose for the modification; (4) a detailed description of the modification, including a statement as to whether the modification involves adding or deleting a tobacco additive, or increasing or decreasing the quantity of the existing tobacco additive; (5) a detailed explanation of why the modification is a minor modification of a tobacco product that can be sold under the FD&C Act; (6) a detailed explanation of why a report under section 905(j)(1) of the FD&C Act intended to demonstrate substantial equivalence is not necessary to ensure that permitting the tobacco product to be marketed would be appropriate for protection of the public health; (7) a certification (
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) states national environmental objectives and imposes on each Federal Agency the duty to consider the environmental effects of its actions. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement for every major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The FDA NEPA regulations are contained in part 25. All applications for exemption from substantial equivalence require the submission of an EA. An EA provides information that is used to determine whether an FDA action could result in a significant environmental impact. Section 25.40(a) and (c) specifies the content requirements for EAs for nonexcluded actions.
The information required by § 1107.1(b) is submitted to FDA so FDA can determine whether an exemption from substantial equivalence to the product is appropriate for the protection of the public health. Section 1107.1(c) states that FDA will review the information submitted and determine whether to grant or deny an exemption based on whether the criteria in section 905(j)(3) of the FD&C Act are met. FDA may request additional information if necessary, to make a determination and may consider the exemption request withdrawn if the information is not provided within the requested timeframe.
This collection of information also contains a requirement that a manufacturer submit a report (referred to as an “abbreviated report”) at least 90 days prior to making an introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution of a tobacco product. Section 905(j)(1)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act states that if an exemption has been requested and granted, a report must be submitted to FDA that demonstrates that the tobacco product is modified within the meaning of section 905(j)(3), the modifications are to a product that is commercially marketed and in compliance with the requirements of the FD&C Act, and all of the modifications are covered by exemptions granted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) under section 905(j)(3).
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA estimates that we will receive 682 exemption requests under § 1107.1(b) for 24 hours per response including EA for a total of 16,368 hours. We have reduced the number of respondents from 812 to 682 based on the average number of applications received during the past 3 fiscal years. Since an EA is required for each § 1107.1(b) (Optional Preparation of Tobacco Product Exemption From Substantial Equivalence Request), the burden per response for EAs (12 hours) has been combined with the 12 hours for a substantial equivalence request for a total of 24 hours per response.
FDA further estimates that we will receive 150 submissions requiring additional information in support of the initial exemption request, and it is expected that it will take an average of 3 hours to prepare the additional information for a total of 450 hours.
FDA estimates that 186 respondents will prepare 186 responses and each response will take approximately 2 hours to prepare, as required by section 905(j)(1)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act, for a total of 372 hours. We have reduced the number of respondents as required by section 905(j)(1)(A)(ii) (abbreviated reports) from 1,217 to 186 based on the average authorizations issued during the past 3 fiscal years. This collection of information requires a manufacturer to submit a report at least 90 days prior to making an introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution of a tobacco product. Section 905(j)(1)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act states that if an exemption has been requested and granted, the manufacturer must submit to FDA a report that demonstrates that the tobacco product is modified within the meaning of section 905(j)(3), the modifications are to a product that is commercially marketed and in compliance with the requirements of the FD&C Act, and all the modifications are covered by exemptions granted by the Secretary under section 905(j)(3).
Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall decrease of 5,182 hours and 1,161 respondents. We attribute this adjustment to the number of submissions we received over the past few years. Therefore, FDA now estimates the burden for exemptions from substantial equivalence requirements is 17,190 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports FDA's Accredited Third-Party Certification Program (also referred to as the third-party food program or TPP), administered under section 808 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 384d), and codified in 21 CFR part 1, subpart M (21
Under TPP, accreditation bodies (ABs) apply to FDA for recognition. Recognized ABs accredit third-party certification bodies (CBs) under the program, except in limited circumstances. The accredited CBs conduct food safety audits and issue food or facility certifications to eligible foreign entities. Section 808(c)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act specifies that FDA uses certifications issued by accredited CBs under TPP in deciding whether to admit certain imported food (both food for human and food for animals) into the United States that we have determined poses a food safety risk under section 801(q) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 381(q)) and in deciding whether an importer is eligible to participate in a program for expedited review and entry under section 806 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 384b). Under TPP, FDA may grant recognition of an AB for up to 5 years from the date of recognition. There are current AB participants that are recognized through fiscal year 2027 or 2028 and will need to submit renewal of recognition applications to continue their participation. Specific requirements and procedures are found in 21 CFR part 1, subpart M.
There are approximately 200,000 foreign food (both food for human and food for animals) exporters who offer their food products for import into the United States. These foreign food exporters include approximately 130,000 food production facilities and approximately 71,000 farms. A proportion of these foreign food exporters may offer food subject to mandatory certification requirements under section 801(q)(3) of the FD&C Act. In that case, to continue importing food products into the United States, eligible entities must either obtain certification from a CB accredited under TPP, or obtain certification from a foreign government designated by FDA. We assume in any given year, 75 foreign food exporters will be subject to requirements in section 801(q) of the FD&C Act.
Use of accredited CBs and food and facility certifications issued under TPP helps reduce the number of redundant audits necessary to assess compliance with food safety requirements of the FD&C Act and applicable regulations. We have developed Forms FDA 3997 and FDA 3997a to enable respondents to submit required data elements using FDA's Unified Registration Listing System (FURLS), an electronic portal (Forms FDA 3997 for ABs and 3997a for CBs) that enables respondents to complete data fields and provide information to FDA electronically. The AB and CB portals provide a standardized format for entering information, prompting respondents for input, and facilitating FDA's review of the submittal. Respondents are subject to user fees for application, renewal, and annual fees, as set forth in 21 CFR 1.700 through 1.725. The user fee rates are calculated each fiscal year and published in the
Respondents to the collection of information are the accredited CBs that conduct audits and issue certifications to eligible entities, the ABs and CBs seeking to participate in TPP, and the recognized ABs and accredited CBs complying with the TPP requirements. An accredited CB is a foreign government, agency of a foreign government, foreign cooperative, or any other third party that a recognized AB (or, in the case of direct accreditation, FDA) has determined meets the applicable requirements of TPP and is accredited to conduct food safety audits and to issue food or facility certifications to eligible entities. An AB is an authority, such as a private third-party, foreign government, or foreign agency, that performs accreditation of CBs. A recognized AB is an AB that FDA has determined meets the applicable requirements of TPP and is authorized to accredit CBs under TPP.
We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports FDA regulations regarding the sanitary transportation of human and animal food. Section 402(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(i)), establishes that food that is transported or offered for transport by a shipper, carrier by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receiver, or any other person engaged in the transportation of food under conditions that are not in compliance with the regulations issued under section 416 is adulterated. Section 416 (21 U.S.C. 350e) of the FD&C Act, requires shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receivers, and other persons engaged in the transportation of food to use prescribed sanitary transportation practices to ensure that food is not transported under conditions that may render the food adulterated. Section 416 of the FD&C Act also directs that we prescribe appropriate human and animal food transportation practice requirements relating to: (1) sanitation; (2) packaging, isolation, and other protective measures; (3) limitations on the use of vehicles; (4) information to be disclosed to carriers and to manufacturers; and (5) recordkeeping.
Additionally, section 703 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 373) provides that a shipper, carrier by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receiver, or other person subject to section 416 of the FD&C Act must, on request of an officer or employee designated by FDA, permit the officer or employee, at reasonable times, to have access to and to copy all records that are required to be kept under the regulations issued under section 416.
Accordingly, we issued regulations in 21 CFR part 1, subpart O (21 CFR 1.900 through 1.934) that establish requirements for the sanitary transportation of human and animal food, as well as prescribe procedures for respondents who wish to request a waiver for any requirement. Under section 1.924 of 21 CFR part 1, subpart O, waivers are requested in the same manner as prescribed in § 10.30 (21 CFR 10.30). Electronic submissions are accepted via
We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate. However, we note that due to rounding, the number of total burden hours recorded by OMB (124,848 hours) has increased by one hour (now 124,849 hours).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection was established because epidemiological evidence gathered in the United Kingdom suggested that bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), a progressively degenerative central nervous system disease, is spread to ruminant animals by feeding protein derived from ruminants infected with BSE. Agency regulation at § 589.2000 (21 CFR 589.2000), authorized by section 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), provides that animal protein derived from mammalian tissue (with some exclusions) is not generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in ruminant feed and is a food additive subject to certain provisions of the FD&C Act (62 FR 30936, June 5, 1997). The regulation places general requirements on persons that manufacture, blend, process, and distribute products that contain, or may contain, protein derived from mammalian tissue, and feeds made from such products.
Specifically, § 589.2000(e)(1)(iv) requires renderers, feed manufacturers, and others involved in feed and feed ingredient manufacturing and distribution to maintain written procedures specifying the cleanout procedures or other means and specifying the procedures for separating products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissue from all other protein products from the time of receipt until the time of shipment. These written procedures are intended to help the firm formalize consistent processes, and then to help inspection personnel confirm that the firm is conducting these processes in compliance with the regulation. Inspection personnel will evaluate the written procedure and confirm it is being followed when they are conducting an inspection. These written procedures must be maintained if the facility is operating in a manner that necessitates the record, and if the facility makes changes to an applicable procedure or process, the record must be updated. Consistent with § 589.2000(h), written procedures shall be made available for inspection and copying by FDA, and records made available for inspection and copying by FDA must be retained for 1 year.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We base our estimate of the number of recordkeepers on inspectional data. Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have adjusted our burden estimate, which has resulted in a decrease of 1,050 hours to the currently approved burden. Review of our inspection data suggests that the number of facilities that need to conduct these separation practices is gradually decreasing. These facilities are aware of the requirements of the BSE rule (
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and
This information collection supports Food and Drug Administration guidance. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
Tobacco products are governed by chapter IX of the FD&C Act (sections 900 through 920) (21 U.S.C. 387 through 387t). Section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), as amended, defines a tobacco product as any product made or derived from tobacco, or containing nicotine from any source, that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product). Section 910 of the FD&C Act sets out premarket requirements for new tobacco products. The term new tobacco product is defined as any tobacco product (including those products in test markets) that was not commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007, or any modification (including a change in design, any component, any part, or any constituent, including a smoke constituent, or in the content, delivery, or form of nicotine, or any other additive or ingredient) of a tobacco product where the modified product was commercially marketed in the United States after February 15, 2007 (section 910(a)(1) of the FD&C Act).
FDA refers to tobacco products that were commercially marketed (including those products in test markets) in the United States as of February 15, 2007, as Pre-Existing tobacco products. Pre-Existing tobacco products are not considered new tobacco products and are not subject to the premarket requirements of section 910 of the FD&C Act. The guidance document associated with this information collection provides information on how a manufacturer may establish that a tobacco product was commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007. A Pre-Existing tobacco product (except such products exclusively in test markets) may also serve as the predicate tobacco product in a section 905(j) report (intended to be used toward demonstrating substantial equivalence) for a new tobacco product (section 905(j)(1)A)(i)) of the FD&C Act.
The guidance document “Establishing That a Tobacco Product Was Commercially Marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007 (Revised)” (2023) (
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA's estimate of the number of respondents is based on the fact that requesting an Agency determination of the Pre-Existing status of a tobacco product under the guidance is not required and also on the number of Pre-Existing tobacco product submissions received from 2011 to October 2024. All new tobacco products require a marketing authorization order from FDA before introducing such products in the U.S. market. If a deemed new tobacco product was on the market as of August 8, 2016, a marketing application was required to be submitted by September 9, 2020 as required by the Court, and as set forth in the Center for Tobacco Products compliance policy (see exception for premium cigars).
FDA further estimates it would take a manufacturer approximately 5 hours to put together this collection of evidence and to submit the package to FDA for review. FDA estimates that it would take approximately 2,500 hours annually to respond to this collection of information.
We have adjusted our burden estimate, which has resulted in a decrease to the currently approved burden. Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall decrease of 2,500 hours and a corresponding decrease of 500 responses. The number of submissions FDA received to establish marketing as of February 15, 2007 has decreased and we have therefore revised the number of respondents to the information collection based on this data.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Quality System Considerations and Content of Premarket Submissions.” This guidance updates the previous version of the guidance, of the same title, issued on September 27, 2023, and finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Select Updates for the Premarket Cybersecurity Guidance: Section 524B of the FD&C Act” issued on March 13, 2024. This guidance provides FDA's recommendations to industry regarding cybersecurity device design, labeling, and the documentation that FDA recommends be included in premarket submissions for devices with cybersecurity risk. Additionally, this guidance has been updated to identify the information FDA generally considers to be necessary for cyber devices to support obligations under the new amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) for ensuring cybersecurity of devices.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Suzanne Schwartz, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5410, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6937; or Phillip Kurs, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 240-402-7911.
Section 3305 of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, enacted on December 29, 2022, added section 524B “Ensuring Cybersecurity of Medical Devices” to the FD&C Act. Under section 524B(a) of the FD&C Act
FDA has updated the final guidance “Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Quality System Considerations and Content of Premarket Submissions” to identify the cybersecurity information FDA considers to generally be necessary to support obligations under section 524B of the FD&C Act for cyber devices. Specifically, the new section in this guidance discusses who is required to comply with section 524B, the devices subject to section 524B, and the documentation recommendations for applicable premarket submissions. Additionally, FDA provides recommendations regarding premarket submissions for changes to cyber devices that had been previously authorized by FDA through 510(k), PMA, PDP, De Novo, and HDE submission pathways, and that require premarket submission. The new section also discusses FDA's review of whether there is a reasonable assurance that the device and related systems are cybersecure for marketing authorizations submitted for cyber devices. The new section of the guidance provides recommendations specifically for cyber devices, however, the recommendations throughout the guidance may help manufacturers of cyber devices meet their obligations under section 524B of the FD&C Act.
This guidance updates the final guidance “Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Quality System Considerations and Content of Premarket Submissions.” This guidance also finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Select Updates for the Premarket Cybersecurity Guidance: Section 524B of the FD&C Act.” FDA considered the applicability of Executive Order 14192, per OMB guidance in M-25-20, and finds this action to be deregulatory in nature.
A notice of availability of the draft guidance appeared in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Quality System Considerations and Content of Premarket Submissions. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in the following table have been approved by OMB:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and
This information collection supports FDA guidance. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
Tobacco products are governed by chapter IX of the FD&C Act (sections 900 through 920) (21 U.S.C. 387 through 21 U.S.C. 387t). The FD&C Act offers tobacco product manufacturers several pathways to obtain an order from FDA to authorize the marketing of a new tobacco product before it may be introduced or delivered into interstate commerce.
To provide assistance with these pathways to market products, FDA will meet with tobacco product manufacturers, importers, researchers, and investigators (or their representatives) when appropriate as described in FDA's guidance titled “Meetings with Industry and Investigators on the Research and Development of Tobacco Products (Revised)” (September 2022;
This guidance describes two collections of information: (1) the submission of a meeting request containing certain information and (2) the submission of an information package in advance of the meeting. The purpose of this proposed information collection is to allow FDA to conduct meetings with tobacco manufacturers, importers, researchers, and investigators in an effective and efficient manner. FDA issued this guidance and the revisions consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulations (21 CFR 10.115).
1. Product name;
2. FDA-assigned Submission Tracking Number(s) of prior submissions (
3. Product category (
4. Product use (indicate for consumer use or for further manufacturing);
5. Contact information for the authorized point of contact for the company requesting the meeting;
6. The topic of the meeting being requested (
7. A brief statement of the purpose of the meeting, which could include a discussion of the types of studies or data to be discussed at the meeting, the general nature of the primary questions to be asked, and where the meeting fits in the overall product development plans;
8. A preliminary list of the specific objectives/outcomes expected from the meeting;
9. A preliminary proposed agenda, including an estimate of the time needed and a designated speaker for each agenda item;
10. A preliminary list of specific critical questions, grouped by discipline (
11. A list of all individuals who will attend the meeting on behalf of the tobacco product manufacturer, importer, researcher, or investigator, including titles, responsibilities, and if applicable, identification of prior FDA employment;
12. The date on which the meeting information package will be received by FDA; and
13. Suggested format of the meeting (
This information contained in the meeting request will be used by the Agency to: (1) determine the utility of the meeting, (2) identify Agency staff necessary to discuss proposed agenda items, and (3) schedule the meeting.
1. Product composition and design data summary;
2. Manufacturing and process control data summary;
3. Nonclinical data summary;
4. Clinical data summary;
5. Behavioral and product use data summary;
6. User and nonuser perception data summary; and
7. Investigational plans for studies and surveillance of the tobacco product, including a summary of proposed study protocols containing the following information (as applicable):
a. Study objective(s);
b. Study hypotheses;
c. Study design;
d. Study population (inclusion/exclusion criteria, comparison group(s));
e. Human subject protection information, including Institutional Review Board information;
f. Primary and secondary endpoints (definition and success criteria);
g. Sample size calculation;
h. Data collection procedures;
i. Duration of follow up and baseline and follow up assessments, and
j. Data analysis plan(s).
The purpose of the meeting information package is to provide Agency staff the opportunity to adequately prepare for the meeting, including the review of relevant data concerning the product. In the Agency's experience, reviewing such information is critical to achieving a productive meeting. If the meeting information package was previously submitted in the meeting request, it should be revised, as applicable, so that the information reflects the most current and accurate information available.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA's estimate of the number of respondents for meeting requests in table 1 is based on the number of meeting requests received and projected over the next 3 years. FDA estimates that 60 meetings will be requested over the next 3 years. We have revised this estimate from 65 respondents to 60 respondents.
The hours per response for combining and sending meeting request letters are estimated at 12 hours each, and the total burden hours for meeting requests are expected to be 720 hours. We have revised the average burden per response from 10 hours to 12 hours. Based on FDA's experience, the Agency expects it will take respondents 720 hours to prepare, gather, copy, and submit brief statements about the product and a description of the purpose and details of the meeting, including identifying prior FDA employment for any individual who will attend the meeting on behalf of the tobacco product manufacturer, importer, researcher, or investigator.
FDA estimates that 60 respondents will compile and submit meeting information packages at 18 hours per response, and the total burden hours for submitting meeting information packages are expected to be 1,080 hours. We have revised this estimate from 65 respondents to 60 respondents. Based on FDA's experience, the Agency expects that it will take respondents, collectively, 1,080 hours to gather, copy, and submit brief statements about the product, a description of the details of the anticipated meeting, and data and information, that generally would already have been generated for the planned research and/or product development.
The total number of burden hours for this collection of information is estimated to be 1,800 hours (720 hours to prepare and submit meeting requests and 1,080 hours to prepare and submit information packages).
Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall decrease of 20 hours. We attribute this adjustment to a decrease in the number of submissions we received over the last few years and our projections for the next 3 years.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; request for notification of participation.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is issuing this notice to request that public stakeholders—including patient and consumer advocacy groups, healthcare professionals, and scientific and academic experts—notify FDA of their intent to participate in periodic consultation meetings on the reauthorization of the Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA). The statutory authority for MDUFA expires September 30, 2027. At that time, new legislation will be required for FDA to continue collecting user fees for the medical device program. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires that FDA consult with a range of stakeholders in developing recommendations for the next MDUFA program. The FD&C Act also requires that FDA hold discussions (at least every month) with patient and consumer advocacy groups during FDA's negotiations with the regulated industry. The purpose of this request for notification is to ensure continuity and progress in these monthly discussions by establishing consistent stakeholder representation.
Submit notification of intention to participate in these series of meetings on or before July 28, 2025. Stakeholder meetings will be held monthly. It is anticipated that they will commence by October 2025. See the
Submit notification of intention to participate in monthly stakeholder meetings by email to
Nia Benjamin, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5424,
FDA is requesting that public stakeholders—including patient and consumer advocacy groups, healthcare professionals, and scientific and academic experts—notify the Agency of
Section 738A(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-1(b)(1)) requires that FDA consult with a range of stakeholders, including representatives from patient and consumer advocacy groups, healthcare professionals, and scientific and academic experts, in developing recommendations for the next MDUFA program. FDA will initiate the reauthorization process by holding a public meeting on August 4, 2025, where stakeholders and other members of the public will be given an opportunity to present their views on the reauthorization. The FD&C Act further requires that FDA continue meeting with the representatives of patient and consumer advocacy groups at least once every month during negotiations with the regulated industry to continue discussions of stakeholder views on the reauthorization. It is anticipated that these monthly stakeholder consultation meetings will commence by October 2025.
FDA is issuing this
If you intend to participate in continued periodic stakeholder consultation meetings regarding MDUFA reauthorization, please provide notification by email to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is providing notice that, effective October 1, 2025, it will no longer use paper-based (checks, bank drafts, money orders, etc.) methods for federal payments (any payment made by an agency) or collections (the transfer of monies from a source outside the Federal Government to an agency or to a financial institution acting as an agent of the Government) except in limited circumstances where an exemption or waiver exists.
Olufunmilayo Ariyo, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-4989; or the User Fees Support Staff at
Federal payments will be made electronically unless the recipient qualifies for a waiver under 31 CFR part 208. All collections will be processed electronically unless the individuals or entities do not have access to banking services or electronic payment systems; or they qualify for an exception under applicable law. These changes do not apply to national security- or law enforcement-related activities where non-electronic fund transfer transactions are necessary or desirable.
This policy aligns with Executive Order (E.O.) 14247,
This change has a direct impact on the fiscal year 2026 collections for the following FDA User Fee programs:
Individuals, corporations, or other public or private entities that qualify for an exemption from the use of electronic funds transfers should reach out to the User Fees Support Staff at
Beginning on October 1, 2025, payments made to FDA must be made in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank by electronic check, credit card, or wire transfer. The preferred method for payments to FDA is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH), also known as eCheck) or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to utilize
Secure electronic payments to FDA can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
For payments made by wire transfer, include the unique user fee ID or invoice number to ensure that the payment is applied to the correct fee(s). Without the unique user fee ID or invoice number, the payment may not be applied. If the payment amount is not applied, the invoice balance due amount will be referred to collections. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Include applicable wire transfer fees with payment to ensure fees are fully paid. Questions about wire transfer fees should be addressed to the financial institution. The following account information should be used to send payments by wire transfer: U.S. Department of the Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account No: 75060099, Routing No. 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33. FDA's tax identification number is 53-0196965.
All entities receiving funds from FDA, including but not limited to vendors or other entities receiving reimbursements or refunds, must have a valid and active electronic payment method on file with the Agency, such as ACH Direct Deposit or other Treasury-authorized payment methods (FedWire or International ACH). Failure to provide this information may result in delays in payment or inability to receive funds.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports FDA guidance. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
Section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act ((21 U.S.C. 387d(a)(4)) requires each tobacco product manufacturer or importer, or agent thereof, to submit all documents developed after June 22, 2009, “that relate to health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects of current or future tobacco products, their constituents (including smoke constituents), ingredients, components, and additives” (herein referred to as “tobacco health documents” or “health documents”).
The guidance document “Health Document Submission Requirements for Tobacco Products (Revised)” (2023) (
FDA has been collecting the information submitted pursuant to section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act through a facilitative electronic form and through a paper form (Form FDA 3743) for those individuals who choose not to use the electronic method. You may access the electronic and paper forms on our website, at
In this information collection, FDA is proposing to continue its compliance plan and request all manufacturers and importers of tobacco products, if not previously submitted, at least 90 days prior to the delivery for introduction into interstate commerce. Thereafter, manufacturers should preserve all health documents, including those that relate to products for further manufacturing and those developed after December 31, 2009, for future submission to FDA.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA estimates that a tobacco health document submission as required by section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, will take approximately 50 hours per submission based on FDA experience. We anticipate documents will be submitted annually for a total of 10 respondents. FDA estimates the total annual reporting burden to be 1,600 hours.
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires that all food additives (as defined by section 201(s) (21 U.S.C. 321(s)) be approved by FDA before they are marketed. Section 409 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 348) establishes a premarket approval requirement for “food additives.” Section 201(s) of the FD&C Act provides an exclusion to the definition of food additive, and thus from the premarket approval requirement, for uses of substances that are GRAS by qualified experts. The GRAS provision of section 201(s) of the FD&C Act is implemented in 21 CFR part 170 (part 170) and 21 CFR part 570 (part 570) for human food and animal food, respectively. Part 170, subpart E and part 570, subpart E provide a standard format for the submission of a notice. This collection utilizes an administrative procedure for a proponent to notify FDA about a conclusion that a substance is GRAS under the conditions of its intended use in human food or animal food. The information submitted to us in a GRAS notice by a proponent is necessary to allow us to administer efficiently the various FD&C Act provisions that apply to the use of substances added to food, specifically with regard to whether a substance is GRAS under the conditions of its intended use or is a food additive subject to premarket review. We use the information collected through the GRAS notification procedures to complete our evaluation within specific timelines.
To support a GRAS conclusion, a proponent may convene a panel of qualified experts to provide evidence that generally available safety data and information about the intended use of the substance in food are generally accepted among experts, which is one of the criteria for eligibility for GRAS status (81 FR 54960 at 54975; August 17, 2016). FDA issued a guidance entitled “Best Practices for Convening a Generally Recognized as Safe Panel” (December, 2022) (
To assist respondents with submissions to the Human Foods Program, we offer Form FDA 3667 entitled “Generally Recognized as Safe Notice” (
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
In row 2 of table 1, we are decreasing our estimate for the number of respondents submitting GRAS notices for animal food and animal feed from 25 to 12, which results in a decrease of 2,210 burden hours (4,250 hours minus 2,040 hours). This estimate is based on the number of submissions we received over the last 3 years.
Row 1 of table 2 reflects a decrease of the average burden per recordkeeping as compared to the corresponding estimate under OMB control number 0910-0911, which decreased from 40 hours to 2 hours per recordkeeping. When we issued the guidance for convening a GRAS panel, we estimated that a proponent would take 40 hours to create and establish a written GRAS panel policy. We presume that proponents will have now established their written GRAS panel policy and only needs to maintain it, which we estimate will take 2 hours for each proponent.
We are revising the information collection to include related activities associated with the guidance for convening a GRAS panel, currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0911, “Substances Generally Recognized as Safe: Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel.” The revision will add 10,462 hours and 1,824 responses. This estimate is based on our experience with this information collection and the number of notifications received in the past 3 years.
Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Indian Health Service (IHS) has decided to expand the geographic
This expansion is effective as of the date of publication of this notice.
This notice can be found at
CDR Tracy Sanchez, Acting Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships by email at
The IHS provides services under regulations in effect as of September 15, 1987, and republished at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A-C. Subpart C defines a Contract Health Service Delivery Area (CHSDA), now referred to as a PRCDA, as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the PRCDA. Residence within a PRCDA by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12, creates no legal entitlement to PRC but only potential eligibility for services. Services needed, but not available at an IHS/Tribal facility, are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the relative medical priority of the services to be provided, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.
The regulations at 42 CFR part 136, subpart C provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRCDA shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation. 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRCDA, the Secretary may, from time to time, redesignate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRCDA. 42 CFR 136.22(b). The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any redesignation is made. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;
(2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;
(3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and
(4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC.
Additionally, the regulations require that any redesignation of a PRCDA be made in accordance with the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). 42 CFR 136.22(c). In compliance with this requirement, the IHS published a notice of proposed redesignation and requested public comments on December 17, 2024 (89 FR 102150). The IHS did not receive any comments in response to the notice of proposed redesignation.
In support of this expansion, the IHS makes the following findings:
1. By expanding the PRCDA to include Cascade County in the State of Montana, the Chippewa Cree Tribe's PRC-eligible population will increase by an estimated 251 Tribal members.
2. As part of their expansion request, the Chippewa Cree Tribe submitted a resolution from the Tribe's governing body. The resolution explains that the expansion is intended to serve their members living in Cascade County, Montana, and it describes those members as being socially and economically tied to the Tribe's reservation. The IHS therefore finds that the Tribal members within the proposed, expanded PRCDA are socially and economically affiliated with the Chippewa Cree Tribe.
3. The expanded PRCDA county forms a contiguous area with the existing PRCDA. Members of the Chippewa Cree Tribe reside in the county proposed for inclusion in the expanded PRCDA. Through their expansion request, the Tribe described how close Cascade County, Montana is to their reservation and explained that it is close enough for their members residing there to return frequently to the Tribe's reservation for ceremony and participation in Tribal elections. For these reasons, the IHS has determined the additional county proposed for inclusion herein to be geographically proximate, meaning “on or near,” to the Tribe's reservation.
4. Through the Chippewa Cree Tribe's request to expand its PRCDA, the Tribe has indicated that the PRC program can continue providing the same level of care to the PRC eligible population if the PRCDA is expanded as proposed, without requiring additional funding from the IHS or reduction of the current medical priority level.
An updated listing of the PRCDAs for all federally recognized Tribes may be accessed via a link on the IHS PRCDA Expansion website (
Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Indian Health Service (IHS) has decided to expand the geographic boundaries of the Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Area (PRCDA) for the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska (Iowa Tribe or Tribe) to include the counties of Jackson in the State of Kansas, and Holt in the State of Missouri. The final PRCDA for the Iowa Tribe now includes the following counties: Brown, Doniphan, and Jackson in the State of Kansas; Holt in the State of Missouri; and Richardson in the State of Nebraska. The sole purpose of this expansion is to authorize additional Iowa Tribal members and beneficiaries to receive Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) services.
This expansion is effective as of the date of publication of this notice.
This notice can be found at
CDR Tracy Sanchez, Acting Director, Office
The IHS provides services under regulations in effect as of September 15, 1987, and republished at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A-C. Subpart C defines a Contract Health Service Delivery Area (CHSDA), now referred to as a PRCDA, as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the PRCDA. Residence within a PRCDA by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12, creates no legal entitlement to PRC but only potential eligibility for services. Services needed, but not available at an IHS/Tribal facility, are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the relative medical priority of the services to be provided, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.
The regulations at 42 CFR part 136, subpart C provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRCDA shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation. 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after Consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRCDA, the Secretary may, from time to time, redesignate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRCDA. 42 CFR 136.22(b). The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any redesignation is made. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;
(2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;
(3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and
(4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC.
Additionally, the regulations require that any redesignation of a PRCDA be made in accordance with the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). 42 CFR 136.22(c). In compliance with this requirement, the IHS published a notice of proposed redesignation and requested public comments on December 11, 2024 (89 FR 99884). The IHS did not receive any comments in response to the notice of proposed redesignation.
In support of this expansion, the IHS makes the following findings:
1. By expanding the PRCDA to include Jackson County, Kansas, and Holt County, Missouri, the Iowa Tribe's PRC eligible population will increase by an estimated 77 Tribal members.
2. The Iowa Tribe communicated its governing body's determination that their members residing in the proposed expansion counties are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe. The IHS therefore finds that the Tribe's members within the proposed, expanded PRCDA are socially and economically affiliated with the Iowa Tribe.
3. The expanded PRCDA counties form a contiguous area with the existing PRCDA. Holt County, Missouri, shares a common boundary with the Iowa Tribe's reservation lands in Richardson County, Nebraska. Jackson County, Kansas, is contiguous with Brown County, which includes part of the Iowa Tribe's reservation lands and is currently included in the Iowa Tribe's PRCDA. Members of the Iowa Tribe reside in each of the counties proposed for inclusion in the expanded PRCDA. For these reasons, the IHS has determined the additional counties proposed for inclusion herein to be geographically proximate, meaning “on or near,” to the Tribe's reservation.
4. The White Cloud Health Center has indicated that the PRC program can continue providing the same level of care to the PRC eligible population if the PRCDA is expanded as proposed, without requiring additional funding or reduction of the current medical priority level.
An updated listing of the PRCDAs for all federally recognized Tribes may be accessed via a link on the IHS PRCDA Expansion website (
Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Indian Health Service (IHS) has decided to expand the geographic boundaries of the Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Area (PRCDA) for the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska (Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri or Tribe) to include the counties of Doniphan and Jackson in the State of Kansas, and Holt in the State of Missouri. The final PRCDA for the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri now includes the following counties: Brown, Doniphan, and Jackson in the State of Kansas; Holt in the State of Missouri; and Richardson in the State of Nebraska. The sole purpose of this expansion is to authorize additional Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri Tribal members and beneficiaries to receive Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) services.
This expansion is effective as of the date of publication of this notice.
This notice can be found at
CDR Tracy Sanchez, Acting Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships by email at
The IHS provides services under regulations in effect as of September 15, 1987, and republished at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A-C. Subpart C defines a Contract Health Service Delivery Area (CHSDA), now referred to as a PRCDA, as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the PRCDA. Residence within a PRCDA by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12, creates no legal entitlement to PRC but only potential eligibility for services. Services needed, but not
The regulations at 42 CFR part 136, subpart C provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRCDA shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation. 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after Consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRCDA, the Secretary may, from time to time, redesignate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRCDA. 42 CFR 136.22(b). The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any redesignation is made. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;
(2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;
(3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and
(4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC. Additionally, the regulations require that any redesignation of a PRCDA be made in accordance with the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). 42 CFR 136.22(c). In compliance with this requirement, the IHS published a notice of proposed redesignation and requested public comments on December 11, 2024 (89 FR 99885). The IHS did not receive any comments in response to the notice of proposed redesignation.
In support of this expansion, the IHS makes the following findings:
1. By expanding the PRCDA to include Doniphan and Jackson Counties in Kansas, and Holt County, Missouri, the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri's PRC eligible population will increase by an estimated seven Tribal members.
2. Through communication with the Tribe and information relayed by the White Cloud Health Center, the IHS understands that the Tribe's governing body has determined that its members residing in the proposed expansion counties are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe. The IHS therefore finds that the Tribal members within the proposed, expanded PRCDA are socially and economically affiliated with the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri.
3. The expanded PRCDA counties form a contiguous area with the existing PRCDA, and members of the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri reside in each of the counties proposed for inclusion in the expanded PRCDA. Jackson County, Kansas, and Doniphan County, Kansas, both share a common boundary with Brown County, Kansas, where the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri has reservation lands. Holt County, Missouri, shares a common boundary with Richardson County, Nebraska, where the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri has reservation lands. For these reasons, the IHS has determined the additional counties proposed for inclusion herein to be geographically proximate, meaning “on or near,” to the Tribe's reservation.
4. The White Cloud Health Center has indicated that the PRC program can continue providing the same level of care to the PRC eligible population if the PRCDA is expanded as proposed, without requiring additional funding or reduction of the current medical priority level.
An updated listing of the PRCDAs for all federally-recognized Tribes may be accessed via a link on the IHS PRCDA Expansion website (
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute, an Institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP) is seeking comments on instituting a standard policy on Intellectual Property (IP) developed by certain funding recipients under NCI DCP funding agreements. This standard policy is entitled “The DIVISION OF CANCER PREVENTION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OPTION TO COLLABORATORS (IP Option).” The proposed policy, if finalized, shall apply to entities that conduct DCP-funded clinical studies under funding agreements which involve an NCI collaborator that provides its proprietary agent or technology for the DCP-supported studies where this IP Option is included as a term of applicable existing and future funding agreements.
Only written comments which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before July 28, 2025 will be considered.
NCI welcomes public comment on the full text of the DCP IP option, as set forth below. Comments should be addressed to: Sidra Ahsan, Ph.D., Patent Agent, Senior Technology Transfer Manager, NCI Technology Transfer Center, Telephone: (240) 276-6468; Email:
The NCI's DCP is a division of NCI that supports cancer prevention and early detection research by providing funding and support to clinical and laboratory researchers, community and multidisciplinary teams, and collaborative scientific networks. DCP supports clinical research under funding agreements to funding recipients which conduct the clinical studies. DCP obtains Agents and Technologies from pharmaceutical, biotechnology and nutraceutical companies (hereinafter “Collaborators”) under technology transfer agreements and provides these Agents or Technologies to funding recipients that conduct the clinical research. In exchange for providing their proprietary Agents or Technologies under technology transfer agreements with NCI, Collaborators will often require that the funding recipients conducting the clinical research agree to certain conditions regarding the Agents and Technologies. These conditions include granting options to IP rights arising from the clinical studies using the Collaborator's Agent or Technology.
Currently, there is no standard IP option in the DCP funding agreements that covers the Collaborator's Agent or Technology when used in the multitude of studies supported by DCP. These research studies may involve pharmaceutical agents, nutraceuticals, or diagnostic assays for timely prevention and early detection of cancers, and these materials are often obtained by NCI from Collaborators. The lack of clarity regarding IP rights language across the multi-disciplinary clinical programs of DCP that utilize a Collaborator's Agent or Technology has
NCI DCP obtains Agents and Technologies from Collaborators under technology transfer agreements, for use in NCI DCP-funded research conducted at Institutions, under funding agreements. As part of the arrangement with Collaborators to use their Agents or Technologies and to make the collaborative research possible, NCI DCP would agree not to provide Agents or Technologies to Institutions unless the Institutions agree to the Division of Cancer Prevention Intellectual Property Option and Institution Notification described below. This IP Option shall be included as a term of applicable existing and future funding agreements.
1. “Affiliate” means any corporation or other business entity controlled by, controlling, or under common control with the Collaborator. For this purpose, “control” means direct or indirect beneficial ownership of at least fifty percent (50%) of the voting stock or at least fifty percent (50%) interest in the income of the corporation or other business entity.
2. “Agent” or “Technology” is Collaborator's property and defined in the technology transfer agreement between NCI DCP and Collaborator.
3. “Collaborator” means a biotechnology, pharmaceutical, or nutraceutical company that provides a proprietary Agent or Technology for use in the NCI DCP-supported Study.
4. “Institution” means an NCI DCP funding recipient that utilizes a Collaborator's Agent or Technology under the scope of a funding agreement.
5. “Invention” means any invention or discovery which is or may be patentable or otherwise protectable under Title 35 of the United States Code, or any novel variety of plant which is or may be protectable under the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321
6. “Study” means DCP-supported clinical and associated non-clinical studies conducted by the Institution under the scope of a funding agreement with NCI DCP.
7. “Subject Invention” means an Invention that is conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of the Study conducted by the Institution using Collaborator's Agent or Technology.
Institution agrees to grant to Collaborator(s): (i) a royalty-free, worldwide, non-exclusive license for commercial purposes with the right to sublicense to Affiliates or collaborators working on behalf of Collaborator for Collaborator's development purposes; and (ii) a time-limited first option to negotiate an exclusive, or co-exclusive, if applicable, world-wide, royalty-bearing license for commercial purposes, including the right to grant sublicenses, subject to any rights of the Government of the United States of America, on terms to be negotiated in good faith by the Collaborator(s) and Institution. If Collaborator accepts the royalty-free, worldwide, non-exclusive commercial license, the Collaborator agrees to pay all out-of-pocket patent prosecution and maintenance costs which will be pro-rated and divided equally among all licensees. If Collaborator obtains an exclusive commercial license, in addition to any other agreed upon licensing arrangements such as royalties and due diligence requirements, the Collaborator agrees to pay all out-of-pocket patent prosecution and maintenance costs. Collaborator will notify Institution, in writing, if it is interested in obtaining a commercial license to any Section A Subject Invention within three (3) months of Collaborator's receipt of a patent application or six (6) months of receipt of an Invention report notification of such a Section A Subject Invention; the timing is based on whichever event comes first. In the event that Collaborator fails to notify Institution, or elects not to obtain an exclusive license, then Collaborator's option expires with respect to that Section A Subject Invention, and Institution will be free to dispose of its interests in accordance with its policies. If Institution and Collaborator fail to reach agreement within ninety (90) days, (or such additional period as Collaborator and Institution may agree) on the terms for an exclusive license for a particular Section A Subject Invention, then for a period of three (3) months thereafter Institution agrees not to offer to license the Section A Subject Invention to any third party on materially better terms than those last offered to Collaborator without first offering such terms to Collaborator, in which case Collaborator will have a period of thirty (30) days in which to accept or reject the offer. If Collaborator elects to negotiate an exclusive commercial license to a Section A Subject Invention, then Institution agrees to file and prosecute patent application(s) diligently and in a timely manner and to give Collaborator an opportunity to comment on the preparation and filing of any such patent application(s). Notwithstanding the above, Institution is under no obligation to file or maintain patent prosecution for any Section A Subject Invention.
For all Section A Subject Inventions, regardless of Collaborator's decision to seek a commercial license, Institution agrees to grant Collaborator a paid-up, nonexclusive, royalty-free, world-wide license for research purposes only. Institution retains the right to make and use any Section A Subject Invention for all non-profit research, including for educational purposes and to permit other educational and non-profit institutions to do so.
Institution agrees to grant to Collaborator a paid-up nonexclusive, nontransferable, royalty-free, world-wide license to all Section B Subject Inventions for research purposes only.
Institution agrees to promptly and confidentially notify NCI DCP (
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and open to the public, as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should submit a request using the following link:
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Members of the public are welcome to provide written comments by emailing
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of issuance of certificates of alternative compliance.
The Coast Guard announces that the Eighth Coast Guard District's Prevention Division has issued certificates of alternative compliance from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to vessels of special construction or purpose that cannot fully comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's design and construction. We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute. This notification of issuance of certificates of alternative compliance promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety mission.
These Certificates of Alternative Compliance were issued between January 2024 and July 2024.
For information or questions about this notice call or email Lieutenant Jenifer Abiona, District Eight, Prevention Division, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 206-827-2691, email
The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law, however, specified 72 COLREGS provisions are not applicable to a vessel of special construction or purpose if the Coast Guard determines that the vessel cannot comply fully with those requirements without interfering with the special function of the vessel.
The owner, builder, operator, or agent of a special construction or purpose vessel may apply to the Coast Guard District Office in which the vessel is being built or operated for a determination that compliance with alternative requirements is justified,
The Eighth Coast Guard District has issued COACs to the following vessels from January 2024 to July 2024:
The Chief of Prevention Division of the Eighth Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the vessels listed above are of special construction or purpose and are unable to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation, construction, or design of the vessels. The Chief of Prevention Division further finds and certifies that the listed vessels are in the closest possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of issuance of certificates of alternative compliance.
The Coast Guard announces that the Eighth Coast Guard District's Prevention Division has issued certificates of alternative compliance from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to vessels of special construction or purpose that cannot fully comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's design and construction. We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute. This notification of issuance of certificates of alternative compliance promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety mission.
These Certificates of Alternative Compliance were issued between August 2024 and December 2024.
For information or questions about this notice call or email Lieutenant Jenifer Abiona, District Eight, Prevention Division, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 206-827-2691, email
The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law, however, specified 72 COLREGS provisions are not applicable to a vessel of special construction or purpose if the Coast Guard determines that the vessel cannot comply fully with those requirements without interfering with the special function of the vessel.
The owner, builder, operator, or agent of a special construction or purpose vessel may apply to the Coast Guard District Office in which the vessel is being built or operated for a determination that compliance with alternative requirements is justified,
The Eighth Coast Guard District has issued COACs to the following vessels from August 2024 to December 2024:
The Chief of Prevention Division of the Eighth Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the vessels listed above are of special construction or purpose and are unable to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation, construction, or design of the vessels. The Chief of Prevention Division, further finds and certifies that the listed vessels are in the closest possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of the Interior (Department) is notifying the public and documenting the adoption of nine U.S. Forest Service (USFS), one U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), one Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and four Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) categorical exclusions (CXs) by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under section 109 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for recreation, restoration, road management, rangeland management, access for hydrologic and geologic exploration, transmission infrastructure, and reburial of human remains and funerary objects under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. In accordance with section 109, this notice identifies the types of actions for which the BLM will rely on the CXs, the considerations that the BLM will use in determining the applicability of the CXs and the consultation between the agencies on the use of the CXs, including application of extraordinary circumstances.
The adoption is effective June 27, 2025.
Amelia Savage, Senior Planning and Environmental Analyst, Division of Support, Planning and NEPA,
The BLM's Recreation Program supports and delivers a wide variety of recreational experiences including, but not limited to, camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, off-highway vehicle driving, mountain biking, bird watching, and various winter sports. The program manages over 4,000 recreation sites and associated facilities, in addition to over 400 fee sites with standard and expanded amenities. An estimated 82 million visitors enjoy outdoor recreation on the BLM-managed public lands every year. The Recreation Program also supports the BLM's Travel and Transportation Management Program, which includes trails, roads, primitive roads, and associated parking lots and trail heads. The BLM's Recreation Program is similar to those managed by the USFS and the TVA. All three recreation programs (
The BLM's Rangeland Management Program guides management of rangelands through grazing management, vegetation treatments, soil management, and rangeland health, as well as inventorying, controlling, and managing noxious weeds and invasive species. The BLM currently administers livestock grazing on 155 million of the 245 million acres of public land under its jurisdiction through nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases that authorize approximately 12.3 million animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing annually (2023 Public Land Statistics, published August 2024). An AUM means the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow/calf pair or its equivalent for a period of one month. The BLM's Rangeland Management Program is similar to the one managed by the USFS. Both Rangeland Management Programs manage livestock grazing, vegetation treatments, soil management, and rangeland health, as well as inventorying, controlling, and managing noxious weeds and invasive species.
The BLM Lands and Realty Program processes applications for rights-of way or other land use authorizations that facilitate commercial, non-commercial, recreational, and other activities to ensure that the public lands are working landscapes managed for the use and enjoyment of current and future generations, including for communication sites, transmission lines, fiber optic infrastructure, and energy.
Mineral materials include natural resources, such as sand, gravel, dirt, and rock, used in everyday building and other construction uses. These materials generally are bulky and have low unit price. Their sheer weight makes their transportation costs very high. Adequate local supplies of these basic resources are vital to the economic life of any community. The BLM's policy is to make these materials available to the public and local governmental agencies whenever possible and wherever environmentally acceptable.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, (NAGPRA) provides a process for Federal agencies and museums that receive Federal funds to repatriate or transfer certain Native American cultural items—human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and Native Hawaiian organizations. NAGPRA also provides a process for Federal agencies to address new discoveries of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural property intentionally excavated or inadvertently discovered on Federal or Tribal lands.
NEPA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, requires all Federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of their proposed actions before deciding whether and how to proceed. 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4332. NEPA's aims are to ensure agencies consider the environmental effects of their proposed actions in their decision-making processes and inform and involve the public in that process. 42 U.S.C. 4331.
Under NEPA, a Federal agency can establish CXs—categories of actions that normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore do not require preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). 42 U.S.C. 4336e(1). These CXs are listed in an agency's NEPA implementation procedures. In accordance with that agency's NEPA procedures, if an agency determines that a CX covers a proposed action, it then evaluates the proposed action to determine whether any extraordinary circumstances that indicate the normally excluded action may have a significant effect. If no extraordinary circumstances are present or if further analysis determines that the extraordinary circumstances do not involve the potential for significant environmental impacts, the agency may apply the CX to the proposed action
Section 109 of NEPA, enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, allows a Federal agency to “adopt” or use another agency's CX for a category of proposed agency actions. 42 U.S.C. 4336(c). To adopt another agency's CXs under section 109, the adopting agency must identify the relevant CX listed in another agency's (“establishing agency”) NEPA procedures that cover the adopting agency's category of proposed actions or related actions; consult with the establishing agency to ensure that the proposed adoption of the CX for the relevant category of actions is appropriate; identify to the public the CX that the adopting agency plans to use for its proposed actions; and document adoption of the CX. 42 U.S.C. 4336(c). The BLM has prepared this notice to describe how it has met applicable statutory requirements for the adoption of 15 CXs, 36 CFR 220.6(d) (5) and (12), 36 CFR 220.6(e) (1), (5), (9), (20), (21), (22) and (23), 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 14.5 D(9), 516 DM 9.5(P) and 18 CFR part 1318, subpart C, appendix A, n. 17, 22, 23 and 34 and to notify the public.
The Department's NEPA procedures are codified at 43 CFR part 46. These procedures address compliance with the NEPA. The Department's protocol for application of CXs is at 43 CFR 46.205. The Department's CXs available to all bureaus within the Department are listed in 43 CFR 46.210. Additional Department-wide NEPA policy is found in the DM, in chapters 1 through 4 of part 516. Supplementary NEPA procedures for the Department's bureaus are published in additional chapters in part 516 of the DM. Chapter 11 of the 516 DM covers the BLM's NEPA procedures and the BLM CXs are listed in 516 DM 11.9.
The BLM has identified the following USFS CX, found at 36 CFR 220.6(d)(5) which applies to repair and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities. The BLM intends to rely on this CX to conduct, for example and without limitation, the repair and maintenance of existing recreation sites and facilities including application of pesticide treatments, repairing vault toilets, and repairing and maintaining campsites.
The BLM has identified the following USFS CX, found at 36 CFR 220.6(d)(12) which applies to issuance of a new authorization or amendment of an existing authorization for recreation special uses. The BLM intends to rely on this CX to issue, for example and without limitation, a new Special Recreation Permit or amend an existing Special Recreation Permit authorizing activities on existing roads, trails, or facilities, or in an area where such activities are allowed, for activities such as high school mountain bike races, competitive motorcycle races, wagon train reenactments on designated roads or trails, permits for shuttle operators, or use of existing facilities and recreation sites for organized group activities and events.
The BLM has identified the following USFS CX, found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(1) which applies to construction and reconstruction of trails. The BLM intends to rely on this CX to authorize, for example and without limitation, the construction and reconstruction of trails to ensuring that access to toilets, picnic tables, and boat ramps accommodates users of wheelchairs or other similar mobility assistance devices.
The BLM has identified the following USFS CX, found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(5) which applies to regeneration of an area to native tree species. The BLM intends to rely on this CX to authorize, for example and without limitation, the regeneration of areas to native tree species including site preparation techniques such as prescribed fire, soil scarification, and ripping or subsoiling. The BLM would not rely on this CX for regeneration of plants other than trees.
BLM has identified the following USFS CX, found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(9) which applies to implementation or modification of minor management practices to improve allotment condition or animal distribution. The BLM intends to rely on this CX to authorize minor management practices to improve allotment conditions or animal distribution when an allotment management plan is not in place, including but limited to, revegetation, adding or moving a water facility, consistent with the examples provided in the CX text.
BLM has identified the following USFS CX, found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(20) which applies to activities that restore, rehabilitate, or stabilize lands occupied by roads and trails. The BLM intends to rely on this CX to authorize, for example and without limitation, actions that restore, rehabilitate, and stabilize lands associated with roads and trails, including installing features such as boulders and logs to promote revegetation, reestablishing natural drainage, stabilizing slopes, and installing water bars.
BLM has identified the following USFS CX, found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(21) which applies to construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, relocation, or disposal of buildings, infrastructure, or other improvements at an existing administrative site. The BLM intends to rely on this CX to authorize, for example and without limitation, activities including the removal, construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, relocation, or disposal of buildings, infrastructure, or other improvements at an existing administrative site.
BLM has identified the following USFS CX, found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(22) which applies to construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, or disposal of buildings, infrastructure, or improvements at an existing recreation site. The BLM intends to rely on this CX when authorizing, for example and without limitation, the construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, or disposal of buildings, infrastructure, or improvements at an existing recreation site, or infrastructure or improvements that are adjacent or connected to an existing recreation site and provide access or utilities for that site including construction, reconstruction, or decommissioning of toilets, camps sites, parking areas, and roads.
BLM has identified the following USFS CX, found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(23) which applies to road management activities on up to 8 miles of NFS roads and associated parking areas. The BLM intends to rely on this CX to authorize, for example and without limitation, repair, rehabilitation, and providing safety improvements for roads and associated features on the BLM managed public land including installation of pull outs, shoulders, and bridges.
Consistent with 36 CFR 220.6(e), the USFS, when relying on these CXs, develops a supporting record and a decision memo. The documentation the BLM will develop when it relies on one of these adopted CXs will be similar to USFS documentation and the BLM will publish the documentation on its publicly available National NEPA Register (
The BLM has identified the following BOR CX, found at 516 DM 14.5 D(9), which applies to issuance of permits for removal of gravel or sand. Consistent with the CX text, the BLM intends to rely on the CX to support approval of the issuance of permits to remove sand and gravel from existing quarries, mines, or pits.
The BLM has identified the following USGS CX, found at 516 DM 9.5(P) which applies to minor activities required to gain or prepare access to sites for exploration drilling operations. The BLM intends to rely on the CX to
The BLM has identified the following TVA CX, found at 18 CFR part 1318, subpart C, appendix A, n. 17 which applies to routine modification, repair, maintenance, and minor upgrade of, and addition to, existing transmission infrastructure. The BLM intends to rely on the CX to authorize activities, for example and without limitation, powerline modification, repair, maintenance, minor upgrade, or addition to, existing transmission infrastructure and construction of roads outside a right-of way that are up to one mile long, consistent with the examples listed in the CX text.
The BLM has identified the following TVA CX, found at 18 CFR part 1318, subpart C, appendix A, n. 22 which applies to development of dispersed recreation sites. The BLM intends to rely on the CX to support the development of dispersed recreation sites of less than 10 acres, for example and without limitation, installation and construction of trails, access improvements, dispersed camp sites, and fencing.
The BLM has identified the following TVA CX, found at 18 CFR part 1318, subpart C, appendix A, n. 23 which applies to development of public use areas. The BLM intends to rely on the CX to construct public use sites such as developed recreation sites smaller than 10 acres, for example and without limitation, boat ramps, stream access, camp sites, parking lots, and access roads.
The BLM has identified the following TVA CX, found at 18 CFR part 1318, subpart C, appendix A, n. 34 which applies to reburial of human remains and funerary objects. The BLM intends to rely on the CX to rebury human remains and funerary objects discovered after the enactment of NAGPRA on BLM-managed public land.
The BLM consulted with USFS, USGS, BOR and TVA on the appropriateness of the adoption of the CXs for the BLM's use in October 2024. The consultations included a review of USFS's, USGS's, BOR's, and TVA's experiences developing and applying the CXs, as well as the types of actions for which the BLM plans to rely on the CXs. The USFS, TVA, and the BLM discussed that USFS's, TVA's, and the BLM authorized trails, roads, recreation sites, and associated land use authorizations are similar in type and scope. The other types of the BLM actions are also similar in type and scope to the actions that USFS, USGS, BOR, and TVA conduct in reliance on CXs. Therefore, the effects of the BLM's actions are expected to be similar to the effects of USFS, USGS, BOR, and TVA actions, which are not significant, absent the presence of extraordinary circumstances that could involve potentially significant effects. The Department has determined that adoption of the CXs for the BLM's use as described in this notice is appropriate.
In consultations with USFS, USGS, BOR, and TVA, the BLM evaluated the extraordinary circumstances to be considered when applying these CXs. When applying these CXs, responsible officials within the BLM will evaluate proposed actions covered by the CXs to determine whether any extraordinary circumstances are present. The Department's extraordinary circumstances are listed at 43 CFR 46.215 and include, in part, consideration of impacts on public health and safety; natural resources; unique geographic characteristics; historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands; floodplains; national monuments; migratory birds; other ecologically significant or critical areas; unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources; unique or unknown environmental risks; precedent for future decision-making; historic properties; listed species or critical habitat; access by Indian religious practitioners to, and for ceremonial use of, Indian sacred sites and the physical integrity of those sites; and contribution to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of invasive weeds or non-native invasive species. The Department's list of extraordinary circumstances addresses issues also identified by the USFS and found at 36 CFR. 220.6 and by the TVA found at 18 CFR 1318.201 and therefore, responsible officials in the BLM intending to rely on these CXs will review whether the proposed action has the potential to result in significant effects as described in the Department's extraordinary circumstances. Because the BLM, BOR, and USGS are bureaus within the Department, the same extraordinary circumstances are used for all three bureaus. The responsible official will assess whether an extraordinary circumstance is present. If the responsible official cannot rely on a CX to support a decision to authorize or take a particular proposed action due to the presence of one or more extraordinary circumstances, the proposed action must be analyzed in an EA or EIS before a decision is made authorizing the action, consistent with and 43 CFR 46.205(c).
This notice identifies to the public the BLM's adoption of the USFS's, USGS's, BOR's, and TVA's CXs for the BLM's use. The notice identifies the types of actions to which the BLM would apply the CXs. The documentation of the adoption will also be available at
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of the Interior (Department) is notifying the public and documenting the adoption of the Indian Health Service (IHS) categorical exclusion (CE) for actions associated with construction of sanitation facilities to serve Indian homes and communities, under section 109 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CE is adopted for use by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). In accordance with section 109, this notice identifies the types of actions to which BIA will apply the CE, the
The adoption is effective June 27, 2025.
Justine Vaivai, Environmental Protection Specialist, Environmental Services, BIA,
Installation of sanitation facility infrastructure is critical across Indian Country. IHS often works with BIA for these important projects. As a funding agency, IHS conducts NEPA analysis for the construction of the waterlines and sanitation facilities. Meanwhile, BIA often has an associated action such as the approval of a lease, right-of-way, or easement for the project to proceed, and therefore has NEPA compliance responsibilities. In most instances, both IHS and BIA are involved in a waterline or a sanitary facility project; however, through adoption of IHS's CE, the BIA could rely on IHS's CE in such circumstances, as well as when making decisions about waterline or sanitary facility projects when IHS is not involved.
Adoption by BIA of the IHS categorical exclusion will allow for consistent and efficient environmental reviews between the two agencies in project development, providing more predictability for applicants. IHS has effectively utilized their CE to support approval of approximately 2,400 projects between 2019-2024 across Indian Country.
The National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 (NEPA), requires all Federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of their proposed actions before deciding whether and how to proceed. 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4332. NEPA's aims are to ensure agencies consider the environmental effects of their proposed actions in their decision-making processes and inform and involve the public in that process. 42 U.S.C. 4331.
Under NEPA as amended, a Federal agency can establish CEs—categories of actions that normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment, individually or in the aggregate, and therefore do not require preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS)—in their agency NEPA procedures. 42 U.S.C. 4336e(1). If an agency determines that a CE covers a proposed action, it then evaluates the proposed action for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant effect. If no extraordinary circumstances are present, the agency may apply the CE to the proposed action without preparing an EA or EIS. 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2).
Section 109 of NEPA, enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, allows a Federal agency to “adopt” or use another agency's CE for a category of proposed agency actions. 42 U.S.C. 4336c. To use another agency's CE under section 109, the adopting agency must identify the relevant CE listed in another agency's (“establishing agency”) NEPA procedures that cover the adopting agency's category of proposed actions or related actions; consult with the establishing agency to ensure that the proposed adoption of the CE for a category of actions is appropriate; identify to the public the CE that the adopting agency plans to use for its proposed actions; and document adoption of the CE. 42 U.S.C. 4336c. The BIA has prepared this notice to describe how it has met applicable statutory requirements for the adoption of IHS CE “J. Construction of Sanitation Facilities” and to notify the public.
The Department NEPA procedures are codified at 43 CFR part 46. These procedures address compliance with NEPA. The Department's protocol for application of CEs is at 43 CFR 46.205. The Department's CEs available to all bureaus within the Department are listed in 43 CFR 46.210. Additional Department-wide NEPA policy is found in the Department's Departmental Manual (DM), in chapters 1 through 4 of part 516. Supplementary NEPA procedures for the Department's bureaus are published in additional chapters in part 516 of the DM. Chapter 10 of the 516 DM covers the BIA's NEPA procedures and the BIA CEs are listed in 516 DM chapter 10.5.
BIA has identified the following IHS CE, found in the
BIA consulted with IHS on the appropriateness of BIA's adoption of the CE in May through July 2024. The consultation included a review of IHS's experience developing and applying the CE, as well as the types of actions for which BIA plans to utilize the CE. The BIA is often involved in IHS's sanitation projects and is familiar with the environmental effects of these projects; the BIA expects that the environmental effects of BIA's actions will be similar to the effects of IHS's sanitation projects approved in reliance on their CE, which have not been significant. Therefore, BIA has determined that its adoption of the CE as described in this notice is appropriate.
When applying this CE, responsible officials within BIA will evaluate proposed actions covered by the CE to determine whether any extraordinary circumstances are present. The Department's extraordinary circumstances are listed at 43 CFR 46.215 and include, in part, consideration of impacts on public health and safety; natural resources; unique geographic characteristics; historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands; floodplains; national monuments; migratory birds; other ecologically significant or critical areas; unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources; unique or unknown environmental risks; precedent for future decision-making; historic properties; listed species or critical habitat; access by Indian religious practitioners to, and for ceremonial use of, Indian sacred sites and the physical integrity of those sites; and contribution to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of invasive weeds or non-native invasive species. The Department's list of extraordinary circumstances addresses issues comparable to the issues addressed by the IHS's extraordinary circumstances found at 58 FR 569 (Jan. 6, 1993
This notice identifies to the public BIA's adoption of the IHS CE. The notice identifies the types of actions to which BIA would apply the CE, as well as the considerations that BIA would use in determining whether an action is within the scope of the CE. The documentation of the adoption will also be available at
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Turtle Bay Exploration Park (TBEP) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after July 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Julia Cronin, Turtle Bay Exploration Park, 844 Sundial Bridge Drive, Redding, CA 96001, 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 TBEP, 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 lot of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The one lot of unassociated funerary objects are Corneline D'aleppo glass trade beads mounted in a large frame.
These beads were purchased by the Redding Museum and Art Center, now Turtle Bay Exploration Park, in 1972 from Troy Crisp, a Texas-born collector who lived briefly in Northern California. Crisp acquired a large collection of Native American and Indigenous Mexican Belongings over his lifetime through vacations, purchases from other collectors, and spending time outdoors hiking and surveying for surface finds. He primarily added to his collection through his business operating heavy equipment to clear brush land. It is unclear how or when he obtained the beads.
Museum records state the beads were “found” in 1969 at a mound in Placerville, California. Mounds are culturally and historically significant to many Native Americans. Based on their location and other factors, the beads were culturally attributed to the Miwok or Maidu. Placerville, the county seat of El Dorado County, California, is near the Shingle Springs Rancheria, whose members are descendants of the Miwok and Maidu peoples who once lived in the region where the beads were recovered.
Turtle Bay Exploration Park does not treat Indigenous Belongings with hazardous materials. However, it is not documented whether these items received treatment prior to the care of the Redding Museum and Art Center.
Turtle Bay Exploration Park has determined that:
• The one lot of unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), 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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, TBEP 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. TBEP 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), San Bernardino County Museum 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 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Gabrielle Carpentier, San Bernardino County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, CA 92374, 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 San Bernardino County 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. The three associated funerary objects are ground stone. Human remains found in Taft (Lost Hills area) include two cranium caps and 11 bags of fragmented mandible and other fragmented bone. Based on reference by Mark Sutton in PCAS Quarterly 55 (2&3), this site is listed in a site inventory table named Summary of Excavation Projects in the Buena Vista Lake Region with the following information: Site No. is CA-KER-2421, Site Area is Lost Hills. CA-KER-2421 (SBCM-201) was collected in 1939 by Gerald A. Smith.
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.
San Bernardino County Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two 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 connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Tejon Indian Tribe.
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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, San Bernardino County 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. San Bernardino County 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 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 28, 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, 490 individuals have been reasonably identified. The 1,174 associated funerary objects are two atlatl points, three bone beads, 46 bone awls, one bone fish hook, one bone pendant, three bone tubes, three bone whistles, three dog burials, one etched bone tool, two bone projectile points, three faunal tooth pendants, one bone flaker, three modified antlers, one modified bone, three modified pieces of turtle carapace, seven lithic projectile points, eight lithic projectile points/knives, two lithic knives, six pestles, six scrapers, two
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. The two associated funerary objects are one ceramic human effigy head and one lot ceramic. Site 15McL13, the Yankee site, was excavated by University of Kentucky Museum of Anthropology staff under contract to the WPA in September 1938. No known hazardous substances are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. The four associated funerary objects are two lithic projectile points, one lithic drill and one lot faunal. Site 15McL14, the Seton site, underwent a limited test excavation by University of Kentucky Museum of Anthropology staff under contract to the WPA in 1938. 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 492 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 1,180 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 28, 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 California State University, Stanislaus intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after July 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Jake Malsbury, California State University, Stanislaus, One University Circle, Turlock, CA 95382, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Stanislaus, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of three cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The three unassociated funerary objects were removed from a site in Hughes County, South Dakota.
The California State University, Stanislaus has determined that:
• The three unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Stanislaus must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Stanislaus 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 University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after July 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Dr. Christopher Woods, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, 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 Penn 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 272 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 272 unassociated funerary objects consist of tools such as adze heads, handles, crooked knives, dog harness swivels, drills, needles, scrapers, snow goggles, and wrist shields; hunting implements including arrowheads, bullets, harpoon fragments and cases, an atlatl, lance head, and bow; and dishware such as bowls, cups, ladles, and plates. Additional items include pipe fragments, sled parts, amulets, charms, beads, and dentalium shells. Object materials include stone, metal, glass, and organic materials such as wood, shell, animal bone, ivory, antlers, leather, and sinew. Two items have a known presence of lead.
The items were collected by Edward Avery McIlhenny from Barrow, Alaska, between 1897 and 1898, who was in the Barrow area at this time assembling archaeological and ethnographical collections on behalf of the Penn Museum and the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The items were accessioned into the collection of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Archaeology and Paleontology (now, Penn Museum) in 1899. Of the 272 items, 15 were collected from the Cape Smythe graveyard (a Historic cemetery east of Utkiavik) and 257 were collected from the Point Barrow cemetery (the Historic Nixeruk cemetery), both in the North Slope Borough region of Alaska.
The Penn Museum has determined that:
• The 272 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government.
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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Penn 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 Penn 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.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the
Comments should be submitted electronically by July 14, 2025.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 2013, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before June 14, 2025. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), The Wistar Institute, through its agent the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) 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 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Dr. Christopher Woods, Williams Director, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, 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 Wistar Institute through its agent, the Penn Museum, and additional information on
Human remains representing at least 34 individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Sometime between 1897 and 1898, the human remains of 34 individuals were collected from a historic cemetery at Point Barrow, Alaska by Edward Avery McIlhenny, who was in Barrow at this time assembling archaeological and ethnographical collections on behalf of the Penn Museum and the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. In 1898, McIlhenny shipped his collection, including the human remains, by freight from Seattle to the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Archaeology and Paleontology. The human remains were immediately transferred to the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology by an agreement between both institutions and were accessioned into the Wistar Institute's collections in 1899. In 1956, 33 of the 34 ancestral human remains were transferred to the Penn Museum on long-term loan.
One of the 34 individuals was transferred to Thomas N. Haviland of the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, likely before 1956. By 1970, the human remains were transferred to Temple University by Haviland's estate. The remains were returned to the Wistar Institute in 2012 and subsequently loaned to the Penn Museum that same year.
The 34 human remains, mainly represented by crania and mandibles, range in age from adolescence to later adulthood. Both males and females are represented, with some sexes being indeterminate or ambiguous. There is one named individual who was identified as Nonoycha, the head man or “Qmilik,” meaning chief. There is no known presence of any potentially 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 described in this notice.
The officials of the Wistar Institute, through its agent the Penn Museum, has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 34 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government.
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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Wistar Institute, through its agent, the Penn 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 Wistar Institute, through its agent, the Penn 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 Newark Museum of Art 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 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Amber W. Germano, Senior Registrar, The Newark Museum of Art, 49 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07102, 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 Newark Museum of Art, 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.
A human lower jawbone of unknown age was donated to the museum by Chester Robotham and accepted into the Museum's collections December 30, 1915. According to Museum records, the ancestral remains were taken from Ft. Pierce, FL and are listed in the Museum catalogue as Seminole.
Additionally, a donation of human bone fragments representing at least one individual was donated to the Museum by David M. Harris in May of 1915. These ancestral remains are of unknown age and were excavated near an Indian shell mound in Mound Park, St. Petersburg, FL.
Both Fort Pierce and Mound Park, St. Petersburg are located within the ancestral lands of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida.
The Newark Museum of Art has no record of treating these ancestral remains with conservation methods involving toxic pesticides or other dangerous substances. The Museum has not tested them for toxicity. However, at the time these individuals were accessioned it was common practice to use poisonous substances for conservation purposes.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural
The Newark Museum of Art has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of at least two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains 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 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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, The Newark Museum of Art 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 Newark Museum of Art 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 Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (SNOMNH) 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 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Zachary Garrett, NAGPRA Program Coordinator, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, OK 73072-7029, 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 SNOMNH, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, one associated funerary object was removed from the Moore site (34Lf31) in LeFlore County, OK. The one associated funerary object is one lot of ceramic vessels. This site is located approximately two miles north of the town of Spiro, OK, and within the floodplain of the Arkansas River. It was initially discovered—and severely disturbed—by a railroad that cut through the site in 1885 and was later impacted by extensive farming activities and looting. In 1938 and 1939, excavations were carried out by the Works Progress Administration, and the University of Oklahoma conducted additional salvage excavations in 1969. The associated finds were transferred to SNOMNH following each excavation season. This funerary object was likely interred during the Fort Coffee phase (1450-1650 CE). Cultural affiliation was determined through Tribal consultation, and included consideration of anthropological, archeological, geographical, and historical information. To our knowledge, no potentially hazardous materials were used to treat the associated funerary object. This list of objects is an addition to the group of associated funerary objects previously identified in a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
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.
SNOMNH has determined that:
• The one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the associated funerary object described in this notice and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco, & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.
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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the SNOMNH must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary objects are considered a single
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has completed an inventory of human remains and 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 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Krystiana Krupa, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 601 E John Street, Champaign, IL 61820, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. The 12 associated funerary objects are faunal remains. The human remains and associated funerary objects are from the Bradley Site (3Ct7) in Crittenden Co., Arkansas. The collection came to the Illinois State Archaeological Survey after being looted at an unknown date, and the Survey transferred the collection to the NAGPRA Office for consultation and repatriation. The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is not aware of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains or associated funerary objects.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 12 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 Quapaw Nation.
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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Berkeley intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after July 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Alexandra Lucas, University of California, Berkeley, 200 California Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, 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 California, Berkeley, 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 14 lots of cultural items have been requested for repatriation. Before 1947, Francis A. Riddell removed 14 lots of unassociated funerary belongings from CA-SAC-18 in Sacramento County, California. The 14 lots of unassociated funerary belongings were accessioned into the University of California, Berkeley's Museum of Anthropology (now known as Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology) on January 15, 1947.
The unassociated funerary belongings include beads, worked stone, baked clay, faunal remains, wood, and worked bone.
Collections and collection spaces at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology were treated with substances for preservation and pest control, some potentially hazardous. No records have been found to date at the Museum to indicate whether or not chemicals or natural substances were used prior to 1960.
The University of California, Berkeley has determined that:
• The 14 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the 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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Berkeley 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 University of California, Berkeley 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), California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt (Cal Poly Humboldt) 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 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Megan Watson, Cal Poly Humboldt, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521, 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 Cal Poly Humboldt, 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 9,241 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 9,241 objects of cultural patrimony include groundstone, flaked stone, unmodified faunal remains, floral remains, unmodified stones, manuports, soil samples, and historic items.
In 1990, two cultural items were purchased at the Redwood Acres Flea Market and donated to Humboldt State University (now Cal Poly Humboldt) by an anonymous donor. Written testimony from the anonymous donor, as well as an accompanying newspaper article clipping, indicates that these cultural items were removed from CA-HUM-351/H located in Arcata, California.
In 1991, one cultural item was removed from an unknown site (referred to as Mad River 2010) near the Mad River located in Humboldt County, California. No associated paperwork or documentation could be located, and it is unclear how the cultural item came to be held in the collections at Cal Poly Humboldt. However, a brief note accompanying the cultural item indicates it may have been collected by archaeologist Peter Dudley of Humboldt State University (now Cal Poly Humboldt).
In 1992, one cultural item was removed from an unknown site (referred to as Shirley Boulevard) located in Arcata, California. No associated paperwork or documentation could be located, and it is unclear how the cultural item came to be held in the collections at Cal Poly Humboldt.
In 1992, one cultural item was removed from an unknown site (referred to as Mad River Beach 1992) near Mad River Beach located in Tyee City, California. No associated paperwork or documentation could be located, and it is unclear how the cultural item came to be held in the collections at Cal Poly Humboldt.
In 1993, three cultural items were removed from CA-HUM-25/P-12-000083 (also known as Loud's 25) located in Samoa, California. The cultural items were removed from the site by archaeologists Allan Bramlette and Peter Dudley of Humboldt State University (now Cal Poly Humboldt). Of these cultural items, one is listed as missing in the catalog. Cal Poly Humboldt is working to locate this item. Should Cal Poly Humboldt locate this item, it will be considered part of this repatriation.
In 1993, 120 cultural items were removed from CA-HUM-939/P-12-000873 (also known as the Hunt Site) located in Bayside, California. The cultural items were removed by archaeologist James Roscoe of Humboldt State University (now Cal Poly Humboldt). Of these cultural items, 65 are listed as missing in the catalog and may have been reburied. Cal Poly Humboldt is working to locate these items. Should Cal Poly Humboldt locate these items, they will be considered part of this repatriation.
In 1994, 6,809 cultural items were removed from P-12-003033 (also known as the Meyer Site/Tipping Site) located in Fieldbrook, California. The cultural items were removed from the site during excavations conducted by students from Humboldt State University (now Cal Poly Humboldt) during the Archaeological Field Methods course. Records indicate that additional items from this site are held in the property owner's private collection and are not in the possession of Cal Poly Humboldt.
In 2007, 191 cultural items were removed from a site referred to as Trobitz/CRF-TRO-01 located in McKinleyville, California. The cultural items were removed by archaeologists Erik Whiteman and James Roscoe of Humboldt State University (now Cal Poly Humboldt).
In 2007, 2,113 cultural items were removed from P-12-001589 (also known as Ribar High Ground 2 and CRF-RH-02) located in Fieldbrook, California. The cultural items were removed by archaeologist Erik Whiteman of Humboldt State University (now Cal Poly Humboldt). Records indicate that one of these cultural items was deaccessioned and may no longer be in the possession of Cal Poly Humboldt. Should Cal Poly Humboldt locate this item, it will be considered part of this repatriation.
Cal Poly Humboldt has determined that:
• The 9,241 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 Wiyot Tribe, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Cal Poly Humboldt 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. Cal Poly Humboldt 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 University of Wisconsin Oshkosh (UWO) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects 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 and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after July 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Adrienne Frie, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Blvd., Oshkosh, WI 54901, 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 UWO, 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 reasonably identified. The three associated funerary objects are one lot of faunal material and two unmodified natural stones. In the Spring of 2018, the Mason Collection was accepted into the UWO Archaeology Lab on the main campus. The human remains were in a commingled lot of faunal remains and were never used for teaching. No geographic location information about this individual is available. UWO has no knowledge or record of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat the human remains and associated funerary objects.
Human remains representing, at least, eight individuals have been reasonably identified. While investigating the UWO main campus teaching collection for all NAGPRA related material, these individuals were identified. These elements were flagged as NAGPRA relevant because they are soil-stained and could have come from a Native American archeological site. These elements could have lost provenience because they were pulled from their original site bins to create a teaching collection, never properly returned to their boxes after examination, or were turned over to UWO and never properly accessioned. UWO has no knowledge or record of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat the human remains.
Human remains representing, at least, eight individuals have been reasonably identified. UWO took possession of individuals when the University absorbed the previously-named University of Wisconsin—Fox Valley in 2018 (now Fox Cities campus). They were identified and transferred to UWO main campus in 2022. The individuals were commingled and contained no
Human remains representing at least one individual have been reasonably identified. UWO took possession of the individual when the University absorbed the previously named UWO-Fond du Lac, now UWO Fond du Lac campus, in 2018. The individual was identified and transferred to UWO main campus in 2022. The individual was commingled and contained no geographic information. UWO has no knowledge or record of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat the human remains
Invitations to consult were sent to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Cayuga Nation; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation; Onondaga Nation; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska;
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; The Osage Nation;
Tonawanda Band of Seneca; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Tuscarora Nation; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
UWO also invited non-federally recognized Indian groups: Brothertown Indian Nation; Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians; and the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians.
Between February 2021 and December 2024, UWO held bi-monthly intertribal consultations. The following Indian Tribes participated in at least one intertribal consultation: the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska and the non-federally recognized Indian group Brother Town Indian Nation.
The following types of information about the cultural affiliation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are available: biological. The information, including the results of consultation, identified:
1. No earlier group connected to the human remains or associated funerary objects.
2. No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization connected to the human remains or associated funerary objects.
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.
UWO has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 18 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.
• No known lineal descendant who can trace ancestry to the human remains
• No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation to the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice has been clearly or reasonably identified.
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
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice may occur on or after July 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UWO 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. UWO 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 University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) 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 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Dr. Christopher Woods, Williams Director, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, 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 Penn 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 eight individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The eight individuals were removed from a Historic cemetery at Point Barrow, Alaska, by Edward Avery McIlhenny as part of a Penn Museum Expedition between 1897 and 1898.
Six of the eight individuals were shipped to Mr. McIlhenny's home in Louisiana before being transferred to the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia in 1899. That same year, the remains were transferred to the Penn Museum and accessioned into the Penn Museum collection (PM# 42834-42839).
Two of the eight individuals were shipped to the University of Pennsylvania Department of Paleontology, to be temporarily housed by freight from Seattle before being transferred and accessioned into the collections of the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia. In 1987, the Wistar Institute gifted the two ancestral human remains to the Penn Museum (PM# 87-30-129, 87-30-143).
The eight individuals range in age from adolescence to adulthood and are represented by cranial and postcranial bone elements. Both males and females are represented, with one sex being ambiguous. No known individuals were identified. There is no known presence of any potentially 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 described in this notice.
The Penn Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of eight individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government.
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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Penn 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 Penn 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 Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and/or objects of cultural patrimony 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 28, 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.
The eight sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony are one club, one salmon bag, one lot of stone points and debitage, three baskets, one spoon, and one lot of masks. The baskets, bag, spoon, and masks were collected prior to 1903 by Dr. Hobart Farlow in and around Pierce County, Washington. The club, stone points, and debitage were collected by Grace Nicholson, James Eddy Mauran, and Dr. Hartman in and around Pierce County, Washington.
The PMAE has determined that:
• The eight sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice are, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, and 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).
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation.
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 28, 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; amendment.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), San José State University has amended a notice of inventory completion published in the
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects may occur on or after July 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Alisha Marie Ragland, San José State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192, 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 San José 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.
This notice amends the list of Indian Tribes published in a notice of inventory completion in the
San Jose State University has determined that:
• The human remains and associated funerary objects described in the original notice were removed from the aboriginal land of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California; Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians;
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in the original 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 the original notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, San José 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. San José 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), University of Colorado Denver (CU Denver) 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 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Christopher S. Beekman, CU Denver, Campus Box 103, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217-3364, 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 CU Denver, 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, four individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The collection consists of 40 bones representing at least four individuals. More than half of these are cranial bones. The origin of the collection is unknown apart from a note stating that it probably came from Eastern Colorado. We have not noted any hazardous material used to treat the bones.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location of the human remains described in this notice.
CU Denver has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of at least four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah; Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; The Osage Nation; and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, CU Denver 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. CU Denver 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 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a known lineal descendant.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after July 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Tamara Billie, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Cultural Resources Management, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Mailbox 44, Albuquerque, NM 87104, 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 Bureau of Indian Affairs, 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 five cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The five sacred objects are three lots of ceramic material and two lots of lithic material are ceramic sherds and lithic flakes. Site LA833 is part of a large Pueblo I-II (A.D. 850-1150) community complex with scattered house units surrounding a great kiva, located within Santa Fe County on Pueblo of Pojoaque land. Archaeological investigations in 1953 and 1959 concluded, and material culture indicates, continuous cultural occupation. Based on material culture, continuity of occupation, and oral history presented by representatives of the Pueblo of Pojoaque, site LA 833 is affiliated with the present-day Pueblo of Pojoaque. Pojoaque cultural members have indicated in consultations that they hold all items used, made, or produced by their ancestors as sacred objects. There are no known hazardous substances used to treat any of these objects.
A total of 190 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 190 sacred objects are 14 lots of ground stone, 74 lots of lithics, 29 lots of ceramic/sherds, one lot of historic objects, three lots of unworked stone, 10 lots ceramic/vessels, 20 lots of ornamentals, eight lots of pipes, one lot of mineral, one lot of botanical, two lots of fauna, two lots of cloud blowers, three lots of ceramic objects, seven lots of organic, five lots of worked ceramic/sherds, six lots of worked stone, one lot of worked shell, one lot of unworked shell, one lot of temper, and one lot of medicine stone. The objects of cultural patrimony are represented by all these artifact types listed and include lithic flakes and tools, pottery sherds and partial vessels, manos and metate fragments, animal bone, both worked and unmodified, beads and ornamental objects, botanical materials and soil or pollen, and historic objects. Site LA835 is a Pueblo I-II (A.D. 850-1150) site that consists of a community complex with scattered house units and a great kiva located within Santa Fe County on the Pueblo of Pojoaque land. Excavations at LA 835 by a New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department project exposed three room blocks, 10 kivas, and a great kiva. Exploratory and test trenches were dug around the three excavated units to determine the full extent of the site and to collect archaeological material to date the site. The material culture collected indicates continuous cultural occupation. Based on material culture, continuity of occupation, and oral history presented by representatives of the Pueblo of Pojoaque, site LA 835 is affiliated with the present-day Pueblo of Pojoaque. Pojoaque cultural members have indicated in consultation that they hold all items used, made, or produced by their ancestors as sacred objects. There are no known hazardous substances used to treat any of these objects.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has determined that:
• The 195 sacred objects described in this notice are specific objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, and 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).
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico.
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 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 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 Bureau of Indian Affairs 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 Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (SNOMNH), 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 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Zachary Garrett, NAGPRA
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 SNOMNH, 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, 216 individuals have been identified. The 258 associated funerary objects are 54 lots of stone projectile points, 51 lots of pottery sherds, eight lots of manos, 53 lots of faunal remains, three lots of faunal beads, 16 lots of stone bifaces, five lots of faunal pins, nine lots of groundstone, four lots of stone axes, four lots of hematite, six lots of worked animal bone, four lots of paintstone, three lots of modified stone, two lots of bone awls, one lot of groundstone ornaments, one lot of metates, five lots of boatstones, one lot of ceramic pipes, four lots of worked shell, two lots of stone celts, four lots of shell beads, one lot of dog burials, two lots of stone hoes, five lots of shell, one lot of stone drills, three lots of unmodified stone, one lot of charred botanical material, one lot of hair pins, one lot of hammerstone, two lots of shell gorgets, and one lot of bear tooth beads.
These individuals and associated funerary objects were removed from 34Lf38, the W.O. Brewer site in LeFlore County, Oklahoma, by members of the Works Progress Administration in 1941. They were then transferred to SNOMNH, where they have remained since. This site was occupied during the Fourche Maline phase (A.D. 300-800). Cultural affiliation between these human remains and associated funerary objects, and the Indian Tribes listed in this notice was established via tribal consultation and archaeological information. To our knowledge, no potentially hazardous substances were used to treat any of the human remains or associated funerary objects.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
SNOMNH has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 216 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 258 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 Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco, & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after July 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, SNOMNH 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. SNOMNH 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 University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) 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 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Dr. Christopher Woods, Williams Director, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, 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 Penn 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 nine individuals have been identified. All the individuals are adults. Of the nine individuals, seven are identified as female, and two as male. No known individuals have been identified. The 37 associated funerary objects consist of a needle case, harpoon heads and shafts, ceramic sherds, beads, ulu and knife blades, an ice pick, tray fragments, a handle, scraper, bowls, an arrowhead, arrow shaft fragments, tubes, a fire drill, and a polar bear fur wrapping. The materials the items are made of include ivory, wood, baleen, slate, ceramic, and animal bone.
The human remains and associated funerary objects were excavated from Nunavak, near north Nunavak Lagoon (Nunavak Bay) between June 4 and August 29, 1929, by Alfred Henry Hopson, a longtime resident of Barrow, as part of a Penn Museum Expedition. They were accessioned in the same year (PM Accession 29-80). The collection dates to the Birnirk Period (ca. 650-1300 CE).
There is no known presence of any potentially hazardous substances.
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 Penn Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of nine individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 37 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 Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government.
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 28, 2025.If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Penn 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 Penn Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announces the availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale (NOS) for the proposed Gulf of America (GOA) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 262 (GOA Lease Sale 262). BOEM is publishing this notice pursuant to its regulatory authority. Pursuant to Section 19 of the OCS Lands Act, the Secretary of the Interior provides the Governors of affected States and the executive of any affected local government the opportunity to review and comment on the Proposed NOS. The Proposed NOS describes the proposed size, timing, and location of the sale, including lease stipulations, terms and conditions, minimum bids, royalty rates, and rental rates.
Comments received from the Governors and the executive of any affected local government on the size, timing, and location of GOA Lease Sale 262 must be submitted to BOEM no later than August 26, 2025. BOEM will publish the Final NOS in the
The Proposed NOS for GOA Lease Sale 262 and Proposed NOS Package containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Gulf of America Region Public Affairs Office, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70123-2394; telephone: (504) 736-2519. The Proposed NOS and Proposed NOS Package are available for downloading or viewing on BOEM's website at
Bridgette Duplantis, Section Supervisor, Leasing and Financial Responsibility, Office of Leasing and Plans, 504-736-7502,
2:00pm, Thursday, June 26, 2025
1255 Union Street NE, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20002
Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public.
Regular Board of Directors meeting.
The General Counsel of the Corporation has certified that in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) permit closure of the following portion(s) of this meeting:
Everything except the Executive (Closed) Session
Executive (Closed) Session
Jenna Sylvester, Paralegal, (202) 568-2560;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published Supplement 62 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 for an additional 20 years of operation for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Diablo Canyon). Diablo Canyon is located in Avila Beach, California, approximately 12 miles west-southwest of San Luis Obispo, California. Possible alternatives to the proposed action of license renewal for Diablo Canyon were evaluated and included the no-action alternative and replacement power alternatives.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 62 is available as of June 20, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0192 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:
•
•
•
•
Kim Conway, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1335; email:
In accordance with section 51.118 of title 10 of the
The draft of NUREG-1437, Supplement 62 was issued for public comment on November 1, 2024. NUREG-1437, Supplement 62 addresses the comments received. As discussed in Chapter 4 of NUREG-1437, Supplement 62, the NRC staff has determined that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Diablo Canyon (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of June 30, July 7, 14, 21, 28, and August 4, 2025. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 30, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 7, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 14, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 21, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 28, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 4, 2025.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Chris Markley at 301-415-6293 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
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.
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 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend Rule 4.10 of the Exchange's compliance rule (“CAT Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”)
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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 4.10 of the CAT Compliance Rule to be consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption. Under the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, the Commission extended the existing exemptive relief pursuant to which Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to update the expiration date of the exemption in Rule 4.10(a)(2) from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030.
On February 3, 2020, the Participants filed with the Commission a request for exemptive relief from the requirement in Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan for each Participant, through its CAT Compliance Rule, to require that, to the extent that its Industry Members utilize timestamps in increments finer than nanoseconds in their order handling or execution systems, such Industry Members utilize such finer increment when reporting CAT Data to the Central
In 2020, the Exchange amended paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 4.10 to reflect this exemptive relief.
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2025.
The language of Rule 4.10(a)(2) has not been changed since that time.
The exemption granted in 2020, however would no longer be in effect after April 8, 2025, unless the period the exemption is in effect is extended by the Commission. Accordingly, on March 24, 2025, the Participants filed with the Commission a request to extend the existing exemptive relief for another five years, until April 8, 2030.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect the extended period set forth in the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, replacing the reference to April 8, 2025 with April 8, 2030. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 4.10 to state:
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2030.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the Commission noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
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 notes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the amendment to the CAT Compliance Rule will apply equally to all Industry Members that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing these amendments to their CAT Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
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 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to amend the rule governing the Invesco Galaxy Ethereum ETF (the “Trust”), shares (the “Shares”) of which have been approved by the Commission to list and trade on the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), to permit staking of ether held by the Trust.
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.
This Amendment No. 1 to SR-CboeBZX-2025-077 amends and replaces in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on June 9, 2025. The Exchange submits this Amendment No. 1 in order to clarify certain points and add additional details to the proposal.
The Commission approved the Exchange's proposal to list and trade shares (the “Shares”) of the Trust on the Exchange pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares, on May 23, 2024.
Based on discussions with the Sponsor, the Exchange proposes to amend several portions of the Eth ETP Amendment No. 1, as amended, in order to allow the staking of ether held by the Trust.
Neither the Trust, nor the Sponsor, nor the Custodian, nor any other person associated with the Trust will, directly or indirectly, engage in action where any portion of the Trust's ETH becomes subject to the Ethereum proof-of-stake validation or is used to earn additional ETH or generate income or other earnings.
The Exchange also proposes to revise the rules governing the listing and trading of shares by adding the following representations. In particular, the Exchange proposes to adopt the below “Staking” section following the “The ETH Custodian” section
The Sponsor may stake, or cause to be staked, all or a portion of the Trust's ether through one or more trusted staking providers (“Staking Providers”). In consideration for any staking activity in which the Trust may engage, the Trust would receive all or a portion of the staking rewards generated by the Staking Provider, which may be treated as income to the Trust.
On September 15, 2022, the Ethereum network upgraded from proof-of-work to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism in a transition commonly referred to as “the Merge”. Proof-of-stake was intended to address the perceived shortcomings of the proof-of-work related to energy usage and duplicative computational effort expended by network contributors (known under proof-of-work as “miners” and under proof-of-stake as “validators”). In a proof-of-work mechanism, miners compete to be the first to solve the cryptographic puzzle. The winner then becomes the only miner permitted to process the block and, in turn, the one to receive the respective rewards. Miners who are not first in time (and thus are not permitted to process the next block) will have effectively expended significant labor and computing power for no gain. Under a proof-of-stake mechanism, several validators can be involved in the processing of a block. One validator may be selected to propose a block while other validators verify the content of that block. The corresponding rewards vary per role performed. Additionally, validators do not compete based on computational power like miners do. Instead, the amount of capital each validator has committed, in the form of the blockchain's native currency, is what contributes to the selection. This proof-of-stake system reduces the computational work performed—and energy expended—to validate each block compared to proof-of-work.
Under proof-of-stake, validators staking a minimum of 32 ether are randomly selected by an Ethereum Network algorithm to process transactions. Entities running multiple validator nodes will therefore experience an increased likelihood of any one of their validators being selected based on their share of validators compared to the total active validators on the network. Any malicious activity, such as double signing, disagreeing with the eventual consensus or otherwise violating protocol rules, results in the forfeiture or “slashing” of a portion of the staked ether.
To operate a node on the Ethereum blockchain, a validator must acquire and lock at least 32 ether by sending a deposit transaction to the staking contract. This transaction associates the staked ether with a withdrawal address (to unlock the ether and receive any staking rewards) and a validator address (to designate the validator node performing transaction verification).
The Sponsor may stake, or cause to be staked, all or a portion of the Trust's ether on behalf of the Trust through one or more Staking Providers. The Sponsor expects to maintain sufficient liquidity in the Trust to satisfy redemptions and current liabilities. Any ether staked by the Sponsor on behalf of the Trust will consist exclusively of ether owned by the Trust. The Sponsor's staking activities on behalf of the Trust will not constitute activities that the SEC has alleged to involve securities offerings in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).
First, the Sponsor will only stake, or cause to be staked, ether held by the Trust. The Sponsor will not seek to pool ether held by the Trust with ether held by other entities in order to stake its assets in a node. Second, the Sponsor will not advertise itself as providing any staking services generally, or promise or promote any specific level of return from staking, or solicit delegated stakes from entities other than the Trust. Third, the Sponsor will stake, or cause to be staked, the Trust's ether solely in order to preserve the assets of the Trust by contributing to the security of the network and to generate returns for the Trust's shareholders.
Staking by the Sponsor will not result in ether held by the Trust moving out of the control of the Custodian. The staking contract can only release ether, either remaining principal or rewards, to the withdrawal address specified when the validator is created. The private keys associated with this withdrawal address are controlled by the Custodian. Additionally, the Sponsor will engage with Staking Provider(s) to execute software and hardware necessary for a live validator to perform its duties. Even if the validators are unable to perform these duties due to complete failure or disruption of the hardware, the Custodian is able to retrieve ether from the associated validators.
Except for the above changes, all other representations in the Eth ETP Amendment No. 1, as amended, remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements. In addition, the Trust will continue to comply with the terms of the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1, as amended, and the requirements of Rule 14.11(e)(4).
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.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would allow the Trust to stake its ether on behalf of its investors. The Ethereum network allows for staking of its native asset, ether, and permits validators who successfully stake ether to receive block rewards. The net beneficiaries are not only validators, or those on behalf of whom they stake ether, but also the Ethereum blockchain itself which grows and is progressively made more secure through the validation of transactions. Staking permits validators to contribute to network security and functionality. Validators are compensated for fulfilling this important role through block rewards.
Allowing the Trust to stake its ether would benefit investors and help the Trust to better track the returns associated with holding ether. This would improve the creation and redemption process for both authorized participants and the Trust, increase efficiency, and ultimately benefit the end investors in the Trust.
Except for the addition of staking of the Trust's ether and the changes discussed herein, all other representations made in the Eth ETP Amendment No. 1, as amended, remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Trust.
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. As noted above, the proposed amendment is intended to benefit investors and allow the Trust to better track the returns associated with holding ether. The Exchange believes these changes will not impose any burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension and approval of the collection of information discussed below.
In Canada, as in the United States, individuals can invest a portion of their earnings in tax-deferred retirement savings accounts (“Canadian retirement accounts”). These accounts, which operate in a manner similar to individual retirement accounts in the United States, encourage retirement savings by permitting savings on a tax-deferred basis. Individuals who establish Canadian retirement accounts while living and working in Canada and who later move to the United States (“Canadian-U.S. Participants” or “participants”) often continue to hold their retirement assets in their Canadian retirement accounts rather than prematurely withdrawing (or “cashing out”) those assets, which would result in immediate taxation in Canada.
Once in the United States, however, these participants historically have been unable to manage their Canadian retirement account investments. Most securities that are “qualified investments” for Canadian retirement accounts are not registered under the U.S. securities laws. Those securities, therefore, generally cannot be publicly offered and sold in the United States without violating the registration requirement of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).
The Commission issued a rulemaking in 2000 that enabled Canadian-U.S. Participants to manage the assets in their Canadian retirement accounts by providing relief from the U.S. registration requirements for offers of securities of foreign issuers to Canadian-U.S. Participants and sales to Canadian retirement accounts.
Rule 237 requires written offering documents for securities offered and sold in reliance on the rule to disclose prominently that the securities are not registered with the Commission and are exempt from registration under the U.S. securities laws. The burden under the rule associated with adding this disclosure to written offering documents is minimal and is non-recurring. The foreign issuer, underwriter, or broker-dealer can redraft an existing prospectus or other written offering material to add this disclosure statement, or may draft a sticker or supplement containing this disclosure to be added to existing offering materials. In either case, based on discussions with representatives of the Canadian fund industry, the staff estimates that it would take an average of 10 minutes per document to draft the requisite disclosure statement.
The Commission understands that there are approximately 2,272 Canadian issuers other than funds that may rely on rule 237 to make an initial public offering of their securities to Canadian-U.S. Participants.
The staff therefore estimates that during each year that rule 237 is in effect, approximately 23 respondents
In addition, issuers from foreign countries other than Canada could rely on rule 237 to offer securities to Canadian-U.S. Participants and sell securities to their accounts without becoming subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act. However, the staff believes that the number of issuers from other countries that rely on rule 237, and that therefore are required to comply with the offering document disclosure requirements, is negligible.
These burden hour estimates are based upon the Commission staff's experience and discussions with the fund industry. The estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is mandatory and is necessary to comply with the requirements of the rule in general.
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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the expiration date in Rule 16060 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Time Stamps) (a)(2) from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 16060 of the CAT Compliance Rule to be consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption. Under the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, the Commission extended the existing exemptive relief pursuant to which Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to update the expiration date of the exemption in Rule 16060(a)(2) from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030.
On February 3, 2020, the Participants filed with the Commission a request for exemptive relief from the requirement in Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan for each Participant, through its CAT Compliance Rule, to require that, to the extent that its Industry Members utilize timestamps in increments finer than nanoseconds in their order handling or execution systems, such Industry Members utilize such finer increment when reporting CAT Data to the Central Repository.
In 2020, the Exchange amended paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 16060 to reflect this exemptive relief.
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2025.
The language of Rule 16060(a)(2) has not been changed since that time.
The exemption granted in 2020, however would no longer be in effect after April 8, 2025, unless the period the exemption is in effect is extended by the SEC. Accordingly, on March 24, 2025, the Participants filed with the Commission a request to extend the existing exemptive relief for another five years, until April 8, 2030.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect the extended period set forth in the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, replacing the reference to April 8, 2025 with April 8, 2030. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 16060 to state:
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2030.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
The Exchange 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 Exchange Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the amendment to the CAT Compliance Rule will apply equally to all Industry Members that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing these amendments to their CAT Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.
The Exchange has 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 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend GEMX's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 3, “Regular Order Fees and Rebates” to (1) amend the Penny Symbol Tier 3 Taker Fees for Market Makers,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
GEMX proposes to amend GEMX's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 3, “Regular Order Fees and Rebates” to (1) amend the Penny Symbol Tier 3 Taker Fees for Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional Customers; (2) amend the Penny Symbol Tier 4 Taker Fees for Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM); (3) amend current note 17 and add a new note 18 to Options 7, Section 3; and (4) amend the Qualifying Tier Thresholds and accompanying descriptions of those thresholds.
Today, GEMX offers 4 tiers of Penny Symbol Taker Fees. Non-Priority Customers
With this proposal, GEMX proposes to increase the Non-Priority Customer Taker Fees for Penny Symbols in Tier 3 from $0.49 to $0.50 per contract. Also, the Exchange proposes to increase the Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) Taker Fees for Penny Symbols in Tier 4 from $0.47 to $0.49 per contract. Despite the proposed increases in Tier 3 and 4 Penny Symbol Taker Fees, the Exchange believes that its pricing remains competitive and will continue to attract order flow to GEMX, particularly given the opportunity to earn the proposed new note 18 fee reduction described below.
The Exchange proposes to amend current note 17 in Options 7, Section 3 to apply to the Tier 3 Penny Symbol Taker Fee in SPY in addition to the current Tier 4 Penny Symbol Taker Fee in SPY in note 17. Today, note 17 states, “Market Maker/Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM) in Tier 4 Taker Fees in SPY will be decreased by $0.01 per contract.” In addition to adding the Tier 3 Penny Symbol Taker Fee to note 17, the Exchange also proposes to add “Penny Symbol” to note 17. The addition of the words “Penny Symbol” to note 17 is not a substantive change because note 17 applies to Penny Symbols today and does not apply to Non-Penny Symbols. As amended note 17 should continue to incentivize marker participants to remove liquidity in SPY on GEMX at a lower cost.
The Exchange proposes a new note 18 to Options 7, Section 3 that would provide that Tier 3 and 4 Penny Symbol Taker Fees for Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) will be $0.42 per contract when the Member is (i) both the buyer and the seller or (ii) the Member removes liquidity from another Member as an Affiliated Member
Today, the Exchange has the following Qualifying Tier Thresholds in Options 7, Section 3 in Table 1:
The Exchange proposes to amend the Qualifying Tier Thresholds, in Options 7, Section 3 at Table 1 by removing the criteria related to the percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. Today, the Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume category includes all volume in all symbols and order types, including both maker and taker volume and volume executed in the PIM, Facilitation, Solicitation, and QCC mechanisms. With this proposal, the Exchange would also be removing taker volume as a factor in achieving the
Tier 1 criteria currently requires a market participant to execute Priority Customer Maker volume of less than 0.65% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. With the amendment, the Tier 1 criteria would require a market participant to execute Maker volume of less than 0.85% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume.
Tier 2 criteria currently requires a market participant to execute Priority Customer Maker volume of 0.65% to less than 1.2% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. With the amendment, the Tier 2 criteria would require a market participant to execute Maker volume of 0.85% to less than 1.2% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume.
Tier 3 criteria currently requires a market participant to execute Priority Customer Maker volume of 1.2% to less than 1.6% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. With the amendment, the Tier 3 criteria would require a market participant to execute Maker volume of 1.2% to less than 1.75% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume.
Tier 4 criteria currently requires a market participant to execute Priority Customer Maker volume of 1.6% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. With the amendment, the Tier 4 criteria would require a market participant to execute Maker volume of 1.75% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume.
Further, the Exchange proposes to remove the rule text at Options 7, Section 3 below Table 1 which states, “The Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume category includes all volume in all symbols and order types, including both maker and taker volume and volume executed in the PIM, Facilitation, Solicitation, and QCC mechanisms.” This rule text is no longer necessary because the Exchange is eliminating the percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume criteria in Table 1. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule text at Options 7, Section 3 below Table 1 which states, “The Priority Customer Maker % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume category includes all Priority Customer volume that adds liquidity in all symbols.” Because the Exchange is eliminating the percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume criteria in Table 1 and amending the second column in Table 1 to apply to all market participants, the Exchange proposes to amend this rule text to state, “The Maker % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume category includes all eligible market participant volume that adds liquidity in all symbols.”
The amendments to the Qualifying Tier Thresholds should continue to encourage market participants to direct orders to GEMX, particularly as all eligible market participant maker volume will count toward the criteria for each tier threshold. Today, only Priority Customer maker volume counted toward the Qualifying Tier Thresholds.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed changes to the Pricing Schedule are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for order flow, which constrains its pricing determinations. The fact that the market for order flow is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for options 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. Within the foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to attract additional order flow to the Exchange and increase its market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the Non-Priority Customer Taker Fees for Penny Symbols in Tier 3 from $0.49 to $0.50 per contract is reasonable because, despite the increase to the fees, the Exchange believes that the pricing will continue to attract order flow to GEMX, particularly given the opportunity to earn a lower Market Maker and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM) Tier 3 Penny Symbol Taker Fee pursuant to proposed new note 18. The Exchange's proposal to increase the Non-Priority Customer Taker Fees for Penny Symbols in Tier 3 from $0.49 to $0.50 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as all Non-Priority Customers would be assessed the same Tier 3 Penny Symbol Taker Fee. Also, Priority Customers would continue to pay a lower Tier 3 Penny Symbol Taker Fee. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants, to the benefit of all market participants who may interact with the order flow.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) Taker Fees for Penny Symbols in Tier 4 from $0.47 to $0.49 per contract is reasonable because, despite the increase to the fees, the Exchange believes that the pricing will continue to attract order flow to GEMX, particularly given the
The Exchange's proposal to amend current note 17 of Options 7, Section 3 to apply to the Tier 3 Market Maker/Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM) Penny Symbol Taker Fee in SPY is reasonable because the amendment will decrease the new Tier 3 Penny Symbol Taker Fee in SPY by $0.01 per contract and incentivize Market Makers/Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) to remove liquidity in SPY on GEMX at the lower cost, thereby attracting more SPY order flow to GEMX. The Exchange's proposal to amend current note 17 of Options 7, Section 3 to apply to the Tier 3 Market Maker/Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM) Penny Symbol Taker Fee in SPY is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers have different requirements and additional obligations as compared to other market participants (such as quoting requirements).
The Exchange believes that assessing different pricing for SPY, as compared to other symbols, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because trading in SPY is different from trading in other symbols in that it is more liquid, has higher volume and competition for executions is more intense in comparison.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new note 18 to Options 7, Section 3 that would provide that Tier 3 and 4 Penny Symbol Taker Fees for Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) will be $0.42 per contract when the Member is (i) both the buyer and the seller or (ii) the Member removes liquidity from another Member as an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity is reasonable because it would allow Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) to lower their Tier 3 and 4 Penny Symbol Taker Fees from the proposed $0.50 per contract for Tier 3 and the proposed $0.49 per contract for Tier 4 to $0.42 per contract, thereby attracting more order flow to GEMX. The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new note 18 to Options 7, Section 3 that would provide that Tier 3 and 4 Penny Symbol Taker Fees for Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) will be $0.42 per contract when the Member is (i) both the buyer and the seller or (ii) the Member removes liquidity from another Member as an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers have different requirements and additional obligations as compared to other market participants (such as quoting requirements).
Allowing a market participant to receive either the note 17 or 18 incentive with respect to SPY, whichever is more favorable, is reasonable because the Exchange would permit market participants to lower fees with either incentive. Allowing a market participant to receive either the note 17 or 18 incentive, whichever is more favorable, but not both is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it would be applied uniformly to all market participants that qualify for the rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Qualifying Tier Thresholds, in Options 7, Section 3 at Table 1 by removing the criteria related to the percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume and replacing the Priority Customer Maker percentage in the second column of criteria in Table 1 with Maker percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume is reasonable because all market participant marker volume would qualify toward the tier thresholds, not just Priority Customer volume. While the Exchange is amending the tier thresholds to make them higher and removing taker volume from any market participant as a qualifier, a greater amount of market participant maker volume would count toward each tier threshold. The Exchange believes that the amended qualifications for executed volume will encourage market participants to send liquidity to GEMX. All Members may interact with the maker volume from any market participant that is submitted on GEMX. The Exchange's proposal to amend the Qualifying Tier Thresholds, in Options 7, Section 3 at Table 1 by removing the criteria related to the percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume and replacing the Priority Customer Maker percentage in the second column of criteria in Table 1 with Maker percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume is equitable and
The Exchange's proposal to remove the rule text at Options 7, Section 3 below Table 1 which states, “The Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume category includes all volume in all symbols and order types, including both maker and taker volume and volume executed in the PIM, Facilitation, Solicitation, and QCC mechanisms” is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the rule text is no longer necessary as the Exchange is eliminating the percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume criteria in Table 1. Additionally, the Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text at Options 7, Section 3 below Table 1 which states, “The Priority Customer Maker % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume category includes all Priority Customer volume that adds liquidity in all symbols” is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is eliminating the percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume criteria in Table 1 and amending the second column to apply to all market participants.
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 increase the Non-Priority Customer Taker Fees for Penny Symbols in Tier 3 from $0.49 to $0.50 per contract does not impose an undue burden on competition because all Non-Priority Customers would be assessed the same Tier 3 Penny Symbol Taker Fee and Priority Customers would continue to pay a lower Tier 3 Penny Symbol Taker Fee. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants, to the benefit of all market participants who may interact with the order flow.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) Taker Fees for Penny Symbols in Tier 4 from $0.47 to $0.49 per contract does not impose an undue burden on competition because all Non-Priority Customers would be assessed the same Tier 4 Penny Symbol Taker Fee and Priority Customers would continue to pay a lower Tier 4 Penny Symbol Taker Fee. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants, to the benefit of all market participants who may interact with the order flow.
The Exchange's proposal to amend current note 17 of Options 7, Section 3 to apply to the Tier 3 Market Maker/Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM) Penny Symbol Taker Fee in SPY does not impose an undue burden on competition because Market Makers have different requirements and additional obligations as compared to other market participants (such as quoting requirements).
The Exchange believes that assessing different pricing for SPY, as compared to other symbols, does not impose an undue burden on competition because trading in SPY is different from trading in other symbols in that it is more liquid, has higher volume and competition for executions is more intense in comparison.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new note 18 to Options 7, Section 3 that would provide that Tier 3 and 4 Penny Symbol Taker Fees for Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) will be $0.42 per contract when the Member is (i) both the buyer and the seller or (ii) the Member removes liquidity from another Member as an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity does not impose an undue burden on competition because Market Makers have different requirements and additional obligations as compared to other market participants (such as quoting requirements).
Allowing a market participant to receive either the note 17 or 18 incentive with respect to SPY, whichever is more favorable, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it would be applied uniformly to all market participants that qualify for the rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Qualifying Tier Thresholds, in Options 7, Section 3 at Table 1 by removing the criteria related to the percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume and replacing the Priority Customer Maker percentage in the second column of criteria in Table 1 with Maker percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume does not impose an undue burden on competition because the criteria will apply uniformly to all GEMX Members in determining a Member's applicable tier. Taker volume from any market participant will uniformly not be counted toward the Qualifying Tier Thresholds.
The Exchange's proposal to remove the rule text at Options 7, Section 3 below Table 1 which states, “The Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume category includes all volume in all symbols and order types, including both maker and taker volume and volume executed in the PIM, Facilitation, Solicitation, and QCC mechanisms” does not impose an undue burden on competition because the rule text is no longer necessary as the Exchange is eliminating the percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume criteria in Table 1. Additionally, the Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text at Options 7, Section 3 below Table 1 which states, “The Priority Customer Maker % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume category includes all Priority Customer volume that adds liquidity in all symbols” does not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange is eliminating the percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume criteria in Table 1 and amending the second column to apply to all market participants.
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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend Rule 7.25 of the Exchange's compliance rule (“CAT Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit
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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 7.25 of the CAT Compliance Rule to be consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption. Under the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, the Commission extended the existing exemptive relief pursuant to which Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to update the expiration date of the exemption in Rule 7.25(a)(2) from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030.
On February 3, 2020, the Participants filed with the Commission a request for exemptive relief from the requirement in Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan for each Participant, through its CAT Compliance Rule, to require that, to the extent that its Industry Members utilize timestamps in increments finer than nanoseconds in their order handling or execution systems, such Industry Members utilize such finer increment when reporting CAT Data to the Central Repository.
In 2020, the Exchange amended paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 7.25 to reflect this exemptive relief.
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2025.
The language of Rule 7.25(a)(2) has not been changed since that time.
The exemption granted in 2020, however would no longer be in effect after April 8, 2025, unless the period the exemption is in effect is extended by the Commission. Accordingly, on March 24, 2025, the Participants filed with the Commission a request to extend the existing exemptive relief for another five years, until April 8, 2030.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect the extended period set forth in the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, replacing the reference to April 8, 2025 with April 8, 2030. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 7.25 to state:
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2030.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the Commission noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
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 notes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the amendment to the CAT Compliance Rule will apply equally to all Industry Members that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing these amendments to their CAT Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written 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 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend Rule 13.4(a) to reflect the name change of NYSE Chicago, Inc. to NYSE Texas, Inc. 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 13.4(a) (Usage of Data Feeds) to reflect the recent name change of NYSE Chicago, Inc. (“NYSE Chicago”) to NYSE Texas, Inc. (“NYSE Texas”). Exchange Rule 13.4(a) lists the specific data feeds it uses for the handling, execution and routing of orders, as well as for surveillance necessary to monitor compliance with applicable securities laws and Exchange Rules.
On February 28, 2025, NYSE Chicago filed with the Commission a proposal to convert from a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware to one organized under the laws of the state of Texas and changed its name from NYSE Chicago, Inc. to NYSE Texas, Inc.
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 update Rule 13.4(a) to reference NYSE Texas will ensure that the Rule correctly identities and publicly states on a market-by-market basis all of the specific network processor and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. In addition, the proposed amendment would reduce potential investor and market participant confusion and therefore remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that investors and market participants can more easily navigate, understand, and comply with the Exchange's rules. The proposed amendment would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from the increased transparency and clarity, thereby reducing potential confusion.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with updating Rule 13.4(a) to reflect the name change associated with a source of data utilized when performing order handling, execution, and routing, and for surveillance necessary to monitor compliance with applicable securities laws and Exchange rules.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change is filed for immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, 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.
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 December 17, 2024, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On February 7, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
LCH SA is proposing to amend its CDSClear fee grid (the “Fee Grid”) by incorporating changes with respect to the CDSClear business and clearing services offered for CDS Dealers (the “Proposed Rule Change”).
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Proposed Rule Change and discussed any comments it received on the Proposed Rule Change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the Proposed Rule Change is for LCH SA CDSClear to amend its Fee Grid regarding the CDS Dealer status offering.
LCH SA is proposing to amend the CDSClear Fee Grid as follows:
Following the full regulatory approval received by LCH SA for the CDS Dealer Status arrangement,
LCH SA is proposing to add footnote (4) to its fee grid to note that the annual fee will be charged to the Clearing Member with which the CDS Dealer is party to a CDS Dealer Clearing Agreement. The fee will be paid over 12 months and charged one twelfth each month where the CDS Dealer is considered live for the whole month, regardless of the go-live date within that month. Footnote (4) further specifies that variable fees will be charged based on the fee tariff of the Clearing Member with which the CDS Dealer is party to a CDS Dealer Clearing Agreement.
LCH SA is proposing to remove references to LCH SA EquityClear and CommodityClear Account Charges following the closure of these businesses in 2024. References to account fees for Cash Markets and Derivatives Markets are being removed for the same reason and replaced with
LCH SA believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
LCH SA believes the amendments to the Fee Grid are reasonable given the changes to its CDSClear service and equitable for both existing and new Clearing Members and Clients.
A participant that is not a member of CDSClear but is affiliated with an existing Clearing Member that wishes to otherwise access the service, may clear as a Client of the Clearing Member or as a CDS Dealer.
LCH SA also believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and regulations thereunder applicable to it, including Commission Rule 17Ad-22(e). In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
LCH SA is proposing an annual fee that allows participants to join as CDS Dealers and is designed to incentivize and encourage a broader set of market participants to submit transactions for clearing even if not a Clearing Member of the CDSClear service. LCH SA believes the specific CDS Dealer fee provides transparency regarding the cost of clearing and promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of CDS products.
LCH SA therefore believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(D)
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments relating to the Proposed Rule Change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted materials that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-LCH SA-2025-006 and should be submitted on or before July 18, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 14, 2025, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-DTC-2025-003 pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “the Act”)
On May 2, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
DTC, along with its two affiliate clearing agencies, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) and National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC,” and together with DTC and FICC, the “Clearing Agencies,” or “Clearing Agency” when referring to one of any of the three Clearing Agencies)
On April 17, 2025, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) submitted a comment letter to the Original Proposal (“SIFMA Letter”).
This Amendment No. 1 would modify the Original Proposal by (i) amending the proposed definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and proposing to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplifying the notification requirements and requested details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allowing for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) making technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying changes.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On March 14, 2025, the Clearing Agencies each filed the Original Proposal
On April 17, 2025, SIFMA submitted the SIFMA Letter.
This Amendment No. 1 would modify the Original Proposal by (i) amending the proposed definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and proposing to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplifying the notification requirements and requested details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allowing for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) making technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying changes, as discussed below.
The Clearing Agencies' current Disruption Rules contain provisions identifying the events or circumstances that would be considered a Major Event.
The Original Proposal proposed to and would continue to (i) update and add definitions used throughout the Disruption Rules; (ii) update the provisions and governance for declaring a Major Event (which would be redefined as a Major System Event
As noted above, based on comments raised in the SIFMA Letter and further review of the Original Proposal, the Clearing Agencies are filing this Amendment No. 1 to (i) amend the proposed definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplify the notification requirements and reporting details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allow for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) make technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments, as described below.
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA, generally,
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA,
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA,
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA, generally,
This proposed amendment also would work to accommodate the proposed amendments to the definitions of DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, described above. Additionally, with this amendment and the proposed amendment to the definition of DTCC System Participant, the Respective Participants would be the sole the responsible parties under the Disruption Rules, whether they connect directly or indirectly to DTCC Systems. As such, the Clearing Agencies propose to amend Section 7(e) of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal to remove language that was originally proposed to cover entities that may not be Respective Participants.
Section 2(a) of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal required, in part, a DTCC Systems Participant experiencing a Participant System Disruption to notify the applicable Clearing Agency of the disruption “on behalf of itself and any Affiliate of the DTCC Systems Participant. . . .”
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA,
Section 2(c) of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal, which would now be amended Section 2(b), as noted immediately above, proposes a list of information to be reported to the applicable Clearing Agency, by the DTCC Systems Participant, regarding the Participant System Disruption.
Section 5 of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal required, in part, that prior to reestablishing connectivity to DTCC Systems pursuant to the Disruption Rules, the subject DTCC Systems Participant must provide the applicable Clearing Agency with a detailed, comprehensive, and auditable report from a Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm.
Based on the proposed amendments described above, and after further review of the overall language of the Original Proposal, the Clearing Agencies propose to make a handful of technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments, such as removing unneeded terms, updating terms, modifying language, and reorganizing sentence structure.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed amendments in this Amendment No. 1 are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to each of the Clearing Agencies. In particular, the Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed amendments are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
As described above, the Clearing Agencies are filing this Amendment No. 1 to (i) amend the definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplify the notification requirements and reporting details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allow for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) make technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments.
The Clearing Agencies believe that these proposed amendments would improve Respective Participants' ability to understand and comply with the overall proposed changes to the Disruption Rules because the amendments simplify and clarify the Original Proposal and are primarily in response to Respective Participants' concerns outlined in the SIFMA Letter. By improving compliance with the Disruption Rules, the Clearing Agencies would be better positioned to identify a Participant System Disruption and then take action because of such disruption, as needed. In other words, the proposed amendments help mitigate risk and better protect the Clearing Agencies, their Respective Participants, and the industry more broadly from a Major System Event. By helping to mitigate risk and better protect those parties, the Clearing Agencies would be better situated to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and better safeguard securities and funds that are in their custody or control, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(17)(i) promulgated under the Act
The Clearing Agencies are filing this Amendment No. 1 to (i) amend the definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplify the notification requirements and reporting details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allow for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) make technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments, each of which were described above.
By providing greater clarity and simplicity in the definitions of the parties that are the subject of the Disruption Rules, and also clarifying and simplifying what information needs to be reported to the Clearing Agencies in the event of a Participant System Disruption or a DTCC Systems Participant looking to reconnect to DTCC Systems, this Amendment No. 1 would improve the Clearing Agencies' ability to identify and collect information about applicable disruptions experienced by the entities connected to DTCC Systems, whether the Respective Participant is connected directly or indirectly via a Third-Party Provider. With better information, the Clearing Agencies could react more quickly and effectively to the disruption, in protection of their systems, as well as the systems of other entities connected to the Clearing Agencies. Therefore, these amendments better position the Clearing Agencies to identify and address operational risk presented by a Participant System Disruption, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(17)(i) promulgated under the Act.
The Clearing Agencies do not believe the proposed amendments in this Amendment No. 1 would have any impact on competition because they are
The Clearing Agencies have not received or solicited any written comments relating to this Amendment No. 1. If any written comments are received, the Clearing Agencies will amend their respective filings to publicly file such comments as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting written comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on How to Submit Comments, available at
The Clearing Agencies reserve the right to not respond to any comments received.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act,
• Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) under the Exchange Act,
• Rule 17ad-22(e)(17)(i) under the Exchange Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) and (b)(3)(I)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by July 18, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by August 1, 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.
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 amend IEX Rule 11.190(g) to introduce a new proprietary mathematical calculation (the “quote imbalance indicator” or “QII”) to make “quote imbalance” determinations for each security (
The CQI is an IEX proprietary mathematical calculation, which is designed to assess the probability of an imminent change to the current Protected NBB
The Exchange expects the QII to be “on” for greater portions of Regular Market Hours
Additionally, IEX proposes to make several conforming edits to IEX Rule 11.190(g), which is currently titled “Quote Stability.” Because the proposed QII would assess quote imbalances, and not quote instability, IEX proposes to rename IEX Rule 11.190(g) with the title “Quote Dynamics” to reflect that it contains two different indicators of the state of quoting in any particular security.
IEX currently uses one proprietary mathematical calculation, the “CQI”, to make quote instability determinations for all D-Peg, P-Peg, C-Peg,
IEX periodically reviews the performance of the CQI in predicting whether the Protected NBB or Protected NBO is in the process of moving to a less aggressive price, and any potential alternative approaches that would help counter the costs of “adverse selection” that participants supplying liquidity incur when their orders are executed at less desirable prices during periods of quote instability. Based on that review, IEX developed the QII. Based on extensive testing, IEX believes that QII is rigorously sound, supported by market data analysis, and consistent with the Act as described below.
The QII is designed to determine whether there is an imbalance in the market for a particular security, thereby indicating that the market for the security may be in transition. Like the CQI, the QII is comprised of a set of rules that can turn it “on” or “off. These rules, when “on,” enable the QII to restrict discretion for D-Peg and P-Peg orders during periods of quote imbalance.
Based on informal feedback from Members,
The Exchange is not proposing to make any changes to the use of C-Peg or D-Limit orders, both of which will continue to use only the CQI.
The Exchange proposes to introduce a new proprietary mathematical calculation, the Quote Imbalance Indicator or QII, to make quote imbalance determinations for each security during Regular Market Hours (independently assessing whether the Protected NBB and Protected NBO are imbalanced). As explained below, the QII would turn “on” during periods when the QII identifies a quote imbalance for either the Protected NBB, the Protected NBO, or the Protected NBBO on a security-by-security basis; and would remain “on” until it identifies that a security's quote is no longer imbalanced. As described below, the QII is expected, on average, to be “on” for approximately 400 milliseconds each time in turns on, compared to two milliseconds for the CQI. Since the QII remains “on” for the duration of a quote imbalance, its duration per instance is longer than the CQI. As a result, the QII is expected to be “on” for, on average, two and one half hours of each trading day on either the bid or offer side.
As proposed, the QII will be comprised of three quote imbalance rules, any of which can turn the QII
As described in detail below, the three quote imbalance rules independently assess: (1) whether the “Book Skew”
As noted above, the QII is based upon the CQI. Specifically, the QII utilizes several of the same variables as the CQI,
The QII also introduces several new variables, which are derived from the same data used by the CQI. These variables are:
• “Signal Bid Delta”, which is determined based on the relationship between the Signal Best Bid and the Previous Signal Best Bid. Specifically: (i) if the Signal Best Bid is greater than the Previous Signal Best Bid, then the Signal Bid Delta is equal to the Aggregate Best Bid Size; (ii) if the Signal Best Bid is less than the Previous Signal Best Bid, then the Signal Bid Delta is equal to the Previous Aggregate Best Bid Size times negative one (1) (
• “Signal Offer Delta”, which is determined based on the relationship between the Signal Best Offer and the Previous Signal Best Offer. Specifically: (i) if the Signal Best Offer is less than the Previous Signal Best Offer, then the Signal Offer Delta is equal to the Aggregate Best Offer Size; (ii) if the Signal Best Offer is greater than the Previous Signal Best Offer, then the Signal Offer Delta is equal to the Previous Aggregate Best Offer Size times negative one (1) (
• “Lookback Window”
• “Bid Imbalance” is equal to the Signal Offer Delta minus the Signal Bid Delta. Bid Imbalance is measured each time there is an Update to the Quote during the Lookback Window.
• “Signal Bid Delta Imbalance” is equal to the sum of the Bid Imbalance values calculated during the Lookback Window (considering only up to a maximum of the most recent 128 Updates during the Lookback Window).
• “Offer Imbalance” is equal to the Signal Bid Delta minus the Signal Offer Delta. Offer Imbalance is measured each time there is an Update to the Quote during the Lookback Window.
• “Signal Offer Delta Imbalance” is equal to the sum of the Offer Imbalance values calculated during the Lookback Window (considering only up to a maximum of the most recent 128 Updates during the Lookback Window).
• “Delta Imbalance Threshold” is equal to twenty (20) times round lot multiples if the Signal Spread is less than or equal to one cent ($0.01) or is equal to zero (0) if the Signal Spread is greater than one cent ($0.01).
• “Bid Book Skew” is equal to the logarithm of the Aggregate Best Offer Size minus the logarithm of the Aggregate Best Bid Size.
• “Offer Book Skew” is equal to the logarithm of the Aggregate Best Bid Size minus the logarithm of the Aggregate Best Offer Size.
• “Book Skew Imbalance Threshold” is equal to 0.4 if the Signal Spread is less than or equal to one cent ($0.01) or is equal to 0.7 if the Signal Spread is greater than one cent ($0.01).
Like the CQI, the QII would apply the variables specified above to the three quote imbalance rules, each of which can turn “on” the QII for a particular security for either the bid side, offer side, or both the bid and offer side. Typically, the QII would only turn “on” for one side of a security (the imbalanced side of the market) but there are circumstances when the QII will be “on” for both the bid and offer sides. Specifically, the QII will be on for both sides of a security either when there is very minimal volume of displayed interest in the security at the Protected NBB and Protected NBO, or when the Book Skew Rule and Order Flow Imbalance Rule each indicate an imbalance for opposite sides of the security.
•
•
•
On a security-by-security basis, if the specified conditions of any of the quote imbalance rules are met, then the System will turn “on” the QII for that security.
One difference between the CQI and the QII is that the QII uses different values for three variables when making quote imbalance determinations for securities with spreads of $0.01 or less (“narrow spread symbols”) than it does for all other symbols. Specifically, the QII's Lookback Window, which is used by the Order Flow Imbalance rules, is limited to 10 milliseconds for narrow spread symbols and 100 milliseconds for all other symbols.
IEX selected different variables for narrow spread symbols versus all other symbols based upon extensive back-testing applying different parameters to historical market data. Based upon this extensive testing, the values resulting in the best model performance were
For both D-Peg and P-Peg orders, when the QII determines that the bid and/or offer for a particular security is imbalanced (
IEX assesses the efficacy of the CQI by measuring its “coverage”, which is the percentage of all “adverse” Protected NBBO changes per symbol (
Because the QII is designed to maximize the amount of trading volume taking place in stable market conditions, even at the expense of fill rates, IEX believes that markouts
As depicted in the above two graphs, D-Peg and P-Peg orders that do not exercise discretion when the quote is imbalanced (
As described above, the QII will remain “on” until the conditions establishing a period of quote imbalance are no longer present. Based on a notional value weighted average across all symbols, the QII is expected to be “on” for approximately 2.5 hours during Regular Market Hours, turning “on” for an average of 396.6 milliseconds each time. Thus, the QII will be “on” for more of the day than the CQI. However, as discussed above, the QII is not designed to maximize fill rates, but rather to support passive trading strategies that seek to trade during the most stable market conditions. Thus, Users that choose to designate any of their D-Peg or P-Peg orders with the QII will do so expecting a lower execution rate than if they had designated the orders with the CQI, but also expecting more stable market executions.
Additionally, IEX notes that regardless of whether a User selects to use the CQI or QII, when multiple pegged orders exercise discretion at the same time, their relative priority is retained.
IEX also proposes to make several conforming edits to IEX Rule 11.190(g) to reflect the adoption of the new QII. Specifically, IEX proposes to:
• Rename IEX Rule 11.190(g) from “Quote Stability” to “Quote Dynamics” to reflect that IEX will now have two distinct indicators, as opposed to one (or more) crumbling quote indicators.
• Revise the first sentence of the first paragraph of IEX Rule 11.190(g) to read: “The Exchange utilizes real time relative quoting activity of Protected Quotations from eleven
• Rename IEX Rule 11.190(g)(1) from “Crumbling Quote” to “Quote Instability” to reflect that this is the only quote instability indicator rule.
• Revise the first paragraph of IEX Rule 11.190(g)(1) to include the text removed from the first paragraph of IEX Rule 11.190(g). The paragraph will now read:
○ “The Exchange utilizes nine proprietary mathematical calculations (“the Quote Instability Rules”) to assess the probability of an imminent change to the current Protected NBB to a lower price or a Protected NBO to a higher price for a particular security. Each Quote Instability Rule independently assesses the probability of an imminent change to the current Protected NBB to a lower price or Protected NBO to a higher price for a particular security. When the quoting activity meets one or more Quote Instability Rule's predefined criteria and that Quote Instability Rule's current activation value pursuant to this IEX Rule 11.190(g) (“Activation Value”) is greater than the Exchange's defined threshold (“Activation Threshold”) for that Quote Instability Rule, the System treats the quote as not stable (“quote instability” or a “crumbling quote”). For each Quote Instability Rule, the Activation Value is initialized at 0.5 at the start of the Regular Session and updated during regular market hours as described in this IEX Rule 11.190(g). During all other times, the quote is considered stable (“quote stability”).”
• Revise IEX Rule 11.190(g)(1)(B)(vii) to add a period that is missing from the end of the definition of “Update”.
• Add IEX Rule 11.190(g)(2), “Quote Imbalance”, which will include the changes detailed above.
• Renumber IEX Rule 11.190(g)(2) to now be IEX Rule 11.190(g)(3) and revise the rule to include a reference to the new quote imbalance functionality.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change by Trading Alert at least ten business days in advance of such implementation date and within 90 days of effectiveness of this proposed rule change.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to provide the QII as an alternative to its current CQI. As described in the Purpose section, the QII is designed to support Users (both Members and Sponsored Participants) and other market participants using passive trading strategies by protecting D-Peg and P-Peg orders from potential unfavorable executions during periods of quote imbalance. IEX believes that the QII, in the aggregate and with respect to the specific changes proposed, is rigorously sound, supported by market data analysis, and consistent with the Act as described below.
The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to utilize a rules-based model for the QII, as it does with the CQI, to determine whether a quote is imbalanced. As discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange believes that the proposed QII will potentially enhance the protection available to market participants using D-Peg and P-Peg orders that elect to use the QII, thereby removing impediments to a free and open market.
The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the Act to apply different threshold variables to the Book Skew and Order Flow Imbalance instability rules based upon whether the symbols have a one cent spread, or a wider-than-one cent spread. As described in the Purpose section, the different variables applied for narrower spread stocks are designed to better assess the instability of a quote based upon extensive back-testing and parameter tuning using historical market data. IEX believes that these transparent criteria for the different calculations conducted based upon the symbols' spread will improve the QII's performance, to the benefit of all market participants seeking a new means of employing a more passive, stability-focused trading strategy.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change may result in more and larger sized D-Peg and P-Peg orders being entered on IEX as a result of the ability to select the QII as an alternative to the CQI which, as discussed above, is designed to support Users and other market participants using passive trading strategies. To the extent more orders are entered, the increased liquidity would benefit all IEX Users and their customers.
Regardless of whether a User selects to use the CQI or QII, when multiple pegged orders exercise discretion at the same time, their relative priority is retained.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that all Users are eligible to use D-Peg and P-Peg orders, and therefore all Users are eligible to benefit from these order types' protections, and will also benefit if use of the QII brings more liquidity to the Exchange. In addition, IEX believes that the QII is consistent with findings in the Commission's delegated approval of IEX's rule filing to adopt the current iteration of the CQI. Specifically, the QII will activate without further action from the User, and thus all Users will benefit equally regardless of their technological capabilities and ability to take action within a short prescribed period.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed conforming changes described in the Purpose section are consistent with the Act because the changes would promote clarity in IEX's rules.
Finally, the Exchange notes that, as proposed, the QII, like the CQI will be
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. To the contrary, as discussed in the Statutory Basis section, the proposal is designed to enhance competition by incentivizing additional liquidity.
With regard to intra-market competition, the proposed QII would apply equally to all Users on a fair, impartial and nondiscriminatory basis without imposing any new burdens on the Users because D-Peg and P-Peg are optional order types, and the QII (as proposed) would be one of two choices of indicators that Users may apply to their D-Peg and P-Peg orders. The Commission has already approved the CQI.
With regard to inter-market competition, other exchanges are free to adopt similar quote imbalance calculations subject to the SEC rule filing process. In this regard, the Exchange notes that NYSE American LLC until recently had a “discretionary pegged order type”, see former NYSE American LLC Rule 7.31E(h)(3)(D), which copied an earlier iteration of the Exchange's quote instability calculation.
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
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”),
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) proposes to amend Rule 4.10 of the Exchange's compliance rule (“CAT Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”)
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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 4.10 of the CAT Compliance Rule to be consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption. Under the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, the Commission extended the existing exemptive relief pursuant to which Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to update the expiration date of the exemption in Rule 4.10(a)(2) from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030.
On February 3, 2020, the Participants filed with the Commission a request for exemptive relief from the requirement in Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan for each Participant, through its CAT Compliance Rule, to require that, to the extent that its Industry Members utilize timestamps in increments finer than nanoseconds in their order handling or execution systems, such Industry Members utilize such finer increment when reporting CAT Data to the Central Repository.
In 2020, the Exchange amended paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 4.10 to reflect this exemptive relief.
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2025.
The language of Rule 4.10(a)(2) has not been changed since that time.
The exemption granted in 2020, however would no longer be in effect after April 8, 2025, unless the period the exemption is in effect is extended by the Commission. Accordingly, on March 24, 2025, the Participants filed with the Commission a request to extend the existing exemptive relief for another five years, until April 8, 2030.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect the extended period set forth in the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, replacing the reference to April 8, 2025 with April 8, 2030. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 4.10 to state:
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2030.
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
In particular, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the Commission noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
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 notes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the amendment to the CAT Compliance Rule will apply equally to all Industry Members that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing these amendments to their CAT Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written 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.
On March 14, 2025, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-FICC-2025-006 pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “the Act”)
On May 2, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
FICC, along with its two affiliate clearing agencies, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) and The Depository Trust Company (“DTC,” and together with FICC and NSCC, the “Clearing Agencies,” or “Clearing Agency” when referring to one of any of the three Clearing Agencies)
On April 17, 2025, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) submitted a comment letter to the Original Proposal (“SIFMA Letter”).
This Amendment No. 1 would modify the Original Proposal by (i) amending the proposed definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and proposing to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplifying the notification requirements and requested details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allowing for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) making technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying changes.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On March 14, 2025, the Clearing Agencies each filed the Original Proposal
On April 17, 2025, SIFMA submitted the SIFMA Letter.
This Amendment No. 1 would modify the Original Proposal by (i) amending the proposed definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and proposing to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplifying the notification requirements and requested details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allowing for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) making technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying changes, as discussed below.
The Clearing Agencies' current Disruption Rules contain provisions identifying the events or circumstances that would be considered a Major Event.
The Original Proposal proposed to and would continue to (i) update and add definitions used throughout the Disruption Rules; (ii) update the provisions and governance for declaring a Major Event (which would be redefined as a Major System Event
As noted above, based on comments raised in the SIFMA Letter and further review of the Original Proposal, the Clearing Agencies are filing this Amendment No. 1 to (i) amend the proposed definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplify the notification requirements and reporting details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allow for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) make technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments, as described below.
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA, generally,
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA,
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA,
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA, generally,
This proposed amendment also would work to accommodate the proposed amendments to the definitions of DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, described above. Additionally, with this amendment and the proposed amendment to the definition of DTCC System Participant, the Respective Participants would be the sole the responsible parties under the Disruption Rules, whether they connect directly or indirectly to DTCC Systems. As such, the Clearing Agencies propose to amend Section 7(e) of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal to remove language that was originally proposed to cover entities that may not be Respective Participants.
Section 2(a) of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal required, in part, a DTCC Systems Participant experiencing a Participant System Disruption to notify the applicable Clearing Agency of the disruption “on behalf of itself and any Affiliate of the DTCC Systems Participant. . . .”
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA,
Section 2(c) of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal, which would now be amended Section 2(b), as noted immediately above, proposes a list of information to be reported to the applicable Clearing Agency, by the DTCC Systems Participant, regarding the Participant System Disruption.
Section 5 of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal required, in part, that prior to reestablishing connectivity to DTCC Systems pursuant to the Disruption Rules, the subject DTCC Systems Participant must provide the applicable Clearing Agency with a detailed, comprehensive, and auditable report from a Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm.
Based on the proposed amendments described above, and after further review of the overall language of the Original Proposal, the Clearing Agencies propose to make a handful of technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments, such as removing unneeded terms, updating terms, modifying language, and reorganizing sentence structure.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed amendments in this Amendment No. 1 are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to each of the Clearing Agencies. In particular, the Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed amendments are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
As described above, the Clearing Agencies are filing this Amendment No. 1 to (i) amend the definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplify the notification requirements and reporting details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allow for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) make technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments.
The Clearing Agencies believe that these proposed amendments would improve Respective Participants' ability to understand and comply with the overall proposed changes to the Disruption Rules because the amendments simplify and clarify the Original Proposal and are primarily in response to Respective Participants' concerns outlined in the SIFMA Letter. By improving compliance with the Disruption Rules, the Clearing Agencies would be better positioned to identify a Participant System Disruption and then take action because of such disruption, as needed. In other words, the proposed amendments help mitigate risk and better protect the Clearing Agencies, their Respective Participants, and the industry more broadly from a Major System Event. By helping to mitigate risk and better protect those parties, the Clearing Agencies would be better situated to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and better safeguard securities and funds that are in their custody or control, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(17)(i) promulgated under the Act
The Clearing Agencies are filing this Amendment No. 1 to (i) amend the definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplify the notification requirements and reporting details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allow for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) make technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments, each of which were described above.
By providing greater clarity and simplicity in the definitions of the
The Clearing Agencies do not believe the proposed amendments in this Amendment No. 1 would have any impact on competition because they are only simplifying, clarifying, and improving definitions; limiting notice and reporting requirements; allowing for the submission of a summary report; and making a handful of technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments overall, which the Clearing Agencies do not believe would have any effect on a Respective Participant's competitive position.
The Clearing Agencies have not received or solicited any written comments relating to this Amendment No. 1. If any written comments are received, the Clearing Agencies will amend their respective filings to publicly file such comments as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting written comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on How to Submit Comments, available at
The Clearing Agencies reserve the right to not respond to any comments received.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act,
• Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) under the Exchange Act,
• Rule 17ad-22(e)(17)(i) under the Exchange Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) and (b)(3)(I)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by July 18, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by August 1, 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 14, 2025, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2025-003 pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “the Act”)
On May 2, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
NSCC, along with its two affiliate clearing agencies, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) and The Depository Trust Company (“DTC,” and together with NSCC and FICC, the “Clearing Agencies,” or “Clearing Agency” when referring to one of any of the three Clearing Agencies)
On April 17, 2025, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) submitted a comment letter to the Original Proposal (“SIFMA Letter”).
This Amendment No. 1 would modify the Original Proposal by (i) amending the proposed definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and proposing to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplifying the notification requirements and requested details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allowing for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) making technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying changes.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On March 14, 2025, the Clearing Agencies each filed the Original Proposal
On April 17, 2025, SIFMA submitted the SIFMA Letter.
This Amendment No. 1 would modify the Original Proposal by (i) amending the proposed definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and proposing to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplifying the notification requirements and requested details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allowing for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) making technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying changes, as discussed below.
The Clearing Agencies' current Disruption Rules contain provisions identifying the events or circumstances that would be considered a Major Event.
The Original Proposal proposed to and would continue to (i) update and add definitions used throughout the Disruption Rules; (ii) update the provisions and governance for declaring a Major Event (which would be redefined as a Major System Event
As noted above, based on comments raised in the SIFMA Letter and further review of the Original Proposal, the Clearing Agencies are filing this Amendment No. 1 to (i) amend the proposed definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplify the notification requirements and reporting details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allow for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) make technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments, as described below.
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA, generally,
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA,
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA,
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA, generally,
This proposed amendment also would work to accommodate the proposed amendments to the definitions of DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party
Section 2(a) of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal required, in part, a DTCC Systems Participant experiencing a Participant System Disruption to notify the applicable Clearing Agency of the disruption “on behalf of itself and any Affiliate of the DTCC Systems Participant. . . .”
In consideration of the comments raised by SIFMA,
Section 2(c) of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal, which would now be amended Section 2(b), as noted immediately above, proposes a list of information to be reported to the applicable Clearing Agency, by the DTCC Systems Participant, regarding the Participant System Disruption.
Section 5 of the Disruption Rules in the Original Proposal required, in part, that prior to reestablishing connectivity to DTCC Systems pursuant to the Disruption Rules, the subject DTCC Systems Participant must provide the applicable Clearing Agency with a detailed, comprehensive, and auditable report from a Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm.
Based on the proposed amendments described above, and after further review of the overall language of the Original Proposal, the Clearing Agencies propose to make a handful of technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments, such as removing unneeded terms, updating terms, modifying language, and reorganizing sentence structure.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed amendments in this Amendment No. 1 are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to each of the Clearing Agencies. In particular, the Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed amendments are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
As described above, the Clearing Agencies are filing this Amendment No. 1 to (i) amend the definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplify the notification requirements and reporting details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allow for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) make technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments.
The Clearing Agencies believe that these proposed amendments would improve Respective Participants' ability to understand and comply with the overall proposed changes to the Disruption Rules because the amendments simplify and clarify the Original Proposal and are primarily in response to Respective Participants' concerns outlined in the SIFMA Letter. By improving compliance with the Disruption Rules, the Clearing Agencies would be better positioned to identify a Participant System Disruption and then take action because of such disruption, as needed. In other words, the proposed amendments help mitigate risk and better protect the Clearing Agencies, their Respective Participants, and the industry more broadly from a Major System Event. By helping to mitigate risk and better protect those parties, the Clearing Agencies would be better situated to promote the prompt and
Rule 17ad-22(e)(17)(i) promulgated under the Act
The Clearing Agencies are filing this Amendment No. 1 to (i) amend the definitions for DTCC Systems Participant, Participant System Disruption, and Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm, and to add Third-Party Provider as a new defined term; (ii) simplify the notification requirements and reporting details of a Participant System Disruption; (iii) allow for the submission of a summary of the Third-Party Cybersecurity Firm report, in lieu of the report itself; and (iv) make technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments, each of which were described above.
By providing greater clarity and simplicity in the definitions of the parties that are the subject of the Disruption Rules, and also clarifying and simplifying what information needs to be reported to the Clearing Agencies in the event of a Participant System Disruption or a DTCC Systems Participant looking to reconnect to DTCC Systems, this Amendment No. 1 would improve the Clearing Agencies' ability to identify and collect information about applicable disruptions experienced by the entities connected to DTCC Systems, whether the Respective Participant is connected directly or indirectly via a Third-Party Provider. With better information, the Clearing Agencies could react more quickly and effectively to the disruption, in protection of their systems, as well as the systems of other entities connected to the Clearing Agencies. Therefore, these amendments better position the Clearing Agencies to identify and address operational risk presented by a Participant System Disruption, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(17)(i) promulgated under the Act.
The Clearing Agencies do not believe the proposed amendments in this Amendment No. 1 would have any impact on competition because they are only simplifying, clarifying, and improving definitions; limiting notice and reporting requirements; allowing for the submission of a summary report; and making a handful of technical, ministerial, and other conforming and clarifying amendments overall, which the Clearing Agencies do not believe would have any effect on a Respective Participant's competitive position.
The Clearing Agencies have not received or solicited any written comments relating to this Amendment No. 1. If any written comments are received, the Clearing Agencies will amend their respective filings to publicly file such comments as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting written comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on How to Submit Comments, available at
The Clearing Agencies reserve the right to not respond to any comments received.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act,
• Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act,
• Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) under the Exchange Act,
• Rule 17ad-22(e)(17)(i) under the Exchange Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) and (b)(3)(I)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by July 18, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by August 1, 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.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-NSCC-2025-003 and should be submitted on or before July 18, 2025.
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.
BIP Ventures Evergreen BDC, BIP Capital, LLC, BIP Capital Management Services, LLC, and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Appendix A to the application.
The application was filed on May 6, 2025, and amended on June 12, 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:
Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, or Adam Large, 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
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 (“Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) proposes to amend Rule 4.10 of the Exchange's compliance rule (“CAT Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”)
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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 4.10 of the CAT Compliance Rule to be consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption. Under the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, the Commission extended the existing exemptive relief pursuant to which Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to update the expiration date of the exemption in Rule 4.10(a)(2) from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030.
On February 3, 2020, the Participants filed with the Commission a request for exemptive relief from the requirement in Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan for each Participant, through its CAT Compliance Rule, to require that, to the extent that its Industry Members utilize timestamps in increments finer than nanoseconds in their order handling or execution systems, such Industry Members utilize such finer increment when reporting CAT Data to the Central Repository.
In 2020, the Exchange amended paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 4.10 to reflect this exemptive relief.
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2025.
The language of Rule 4.10(a)(2) has not been changed since that time.
The exemption granted in 2020, however would no longer be in effect after April 8, 2025, unless the period the exemption is in effect is extended by the Commission. Accordingly, on March 24, 2025, the Participants filed with the Commission a request to extend the existing exemptive relief for another five years, until April 8, 2030.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect the extended period set forth in the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, replacing the reference to April 8, 2025 with April 8, 2030. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 4.10 to state:
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2030.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the Commission noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
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 notes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the amendment to the CAT Compliance Rule will apply equally to all Industry Members that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing these amendments to their CAT Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written 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.
On March 17, 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 May 8, 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 track the performance of DOT tokens (“DOT”),
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 DOT, 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 18, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by August 1, 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 March 14, 2025, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange filed with the Commission a proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, to amend Exchange Rule 11.25(e) to (1) allow Users to utilize the Exchange's Match Trade Prevention functionality when entering Periodic Auction Orders onto the Exchange for execution; (2) add new rule text describing how the System will handle Periodic Auction Orders entered with MTP instructions when a Periodic Auction is not in progress; (3) add new rule text describing how the System will handle Periodic Auction Orders entered with MTP instructions when a Periodic Auction is in progress; and (4) add new rule text describing how System will handle inbound Periodic Auction Orders entered with both an MTP instruction and Minimum Quantity instruction, when a Periodic Auction is not in progress. 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 Exchange Rule 11.25 to allow (1) Users to utilize the Exchange's Match Trade Prevention (“MTP”)
By way of background, MTP is an existing process
Periodic Auctions are available on BYX during the Regular Trading Session (9:30 a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. ET). Periodic Auction Orders
Once a Periodic Auction is initiated, a Periodic Auction message will be generated and disseminated via the Exchange's proprietary depth of book market data feed at a randomized time prior to the end of the auction. All Periodic Auctions will run for a fixed time period of 100 milliseconds (
Periodic Auction Orders and Continuous Book Orders that are executable at the end of the Periodic Auction Period are executed at the Periodic Auction Book Price determined pursuant to Rule 11.25(d), as follow: First, any displayed Continuous Book Orders that are executable at the Periodic Auction Book Price are executed in price/time priority. Second, any Periodic Auction Orders that are executable at the Periodic Auction Book Price are executed in size/time priority, beginning with the largest order. Finally, any non-displayed Continuous Book Orders that are executable at the Periodic Auction Book Price are executed as provided in Rule 11.9(a)(2)(B).
Currently, Rule 11.25(e) states that all MTP modifiers (as defined in Rule 11.9(f)(1)-(5)) for Periodic Auction Orders will be ignored for executions occurring during a Periodic Auction. As part of the Exchange's prior Periodic Auction Rule filings,
Accordingly, the Exchange now seeks to allow Users to enter onto the Exchange Periodic Auction Orders with MTP instructions (“MTP Order”).
The Exchange also wishes to add rule text describing how the System will handle MTP Orders when a Periodic Auction is in progress. As proposed, when a Periodic Auction is in progress, there will be instances where the Exchange has elected to temporarily bypass
The Exchange also notes that the proposed MTP functionality is intended as a supplementary risk tool that Members may voluntarily use to help them manage their risk and compliance with applicable securities rules. As registered broker-dealers, Members are ultimately responsible for compliance with applicable securities rules and should not rely on the proposed functionality as a sole means of
First, proposed Rule 11.25(g)(1)(A) would state that if an Inbound MTP Continuous Book Order is marketable against a contra-side Resting MTP Periodic Auction Order participating in the Periodic Auction, the System will ignore the Inbound Continuous Book Order's MTP instruction with regards to the Resting MTP Periodic Auction Order both upon entry as well as at the end of the Periodic Auction Period, and the Inbound MTP Continuous Book Order will be handled as set forth in Rule 11.25(a)-(e). For the sake of clarity, the end of the Periodic Auction Period refers to an active part of the Periodic Auction and describes the time period when the Periodic Auction Book Price has been struck, and the System has identified which orders are executable at the Periodic Auction Price. Additionally, the Exchange notes that the temporary bypassing of MTP the inbound MTP Continuous Book Order is due to the fact that upon entry the Inbound Continuous Book Order could receive an execution on the Continuous Book while the Periodic Auction is in progress. As such, rather than immediately cancel—depending on the relevant MTP instruction—either the inbound MTP Continuous Book Order that could execute on the Continuous Book while the Periodic Auction process is in progress, or the Periodic Auction Order participating in the Periodic Auction, the Exchange has elected to temporarily bypass the application of the Inbound Continuous Book Order's MTP instruction versus the Resting MTP Periodic Auction Order.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Example 1 demonstrates how the System will temporarily bypass an inbound Continuous Book Order's MTP instruction when a Periodic Auction is in progress, despite the User adding MTP instructions to their Periodic Auction Order(s) and Continuous Book Order(s). Here, Firm B's Order 2, a PAE Order with an MCO modifier, initiates a Periodic Auction upon entry with Firm A's Order 1, a resting PAE Order with an MCO modifier. Firm A subsequently enters a Continuous Book Order (Hidden) with an MCO modifier. Here, the Exchange will temporarily bypass
Based on the proposed MTP functionality, Order 3 will be posted to the BYX Book, and the System will temporarily bypass Order 3's MTP instruction.
The Exchange believes that temporarily bypassing an MTP modifier in this scenario is necessary to ensure that a Periodic Auction completes once it is initiated. Additionally, bypassing Order 3's MTP instruction is also necessary to avoid disrupting trading in the Continuous Book, because Order 3 could receive an execution on the Continuous Book while the Periodic Auction is in progress. While Order 3 could end up becoming executable at the Periodic Auction Book Price and trade in the Periodic Auction, the Exchange believes that canceling Order based on the mere
Second, proposed Rule 11.25(g)(1)(B) would state that if an Inbound MTP Periodic Auction upon entry would, but for the application of MTP, join the Periodic Auction, and there is a Resting MTP Continuous Book Order on the BYX Book, then the System will not apply MTP even if the Resting MTP Continuous Book Order becomes marketable versus the Inbound MTP Periodic Auction Order and participates in the Periodic Auction. The Inbound MTP Periodic Auction Order will be handled as set forth in Rule 11.25(a)-(e). Here, the Exchange believes that the temporarily bypassing MTP is warranted because the inbound MTP
Moreover, depending on the relevant MTP instructions, application of MTP could also result in the cancelation of the Inbound MTP Periodic Auction Order. However, the Exchange believes that canceling the Inbound MTP Periodic Auction Order would unnecessarily prevent a marketable order from participating in the Periodic Auction as a User might expect, based only a mere
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
First, note that a Continuous Book Order cannot initiate a Periodic Auction.
Upon entry, Order 4, is marketable versus Order X and Order Y, which are Periodic Auction Orders participating in the Periodic Auction. As such, the System will temporarily bypass Order 4's MTP instruction and Order 4 will join the Periodic Auction, despite the fact that the System
Here, even though Order 1 and Order 4 both originated from Firm A, and are designated with an MTP modifier, Order 1 is not canceled upon Order 4's arrival because Order 1 is a Continuous Book Order that may or may not end up trading with Order 4 once the Periodic Auction is complete. Because Order 1 could receive an execution on the Continuous Book while the Periodic Auction is in progress, the Exchange temporarily bypasses Order 1's MTP instruction upon Order 4's arrival to prevent Order 1 from forfeiting a Continuous Book execution based on a
Importantly, BYX notes that the bypassing of an inbound order's MTP modifier in proposed rule 11.25(g)(1)(A) and 11.25(g)(1)(B) is
Third, proposed Rule 11.25(g)(1)(C) would state that if an Inbound MTP Periodic Auction Order upon entry is, but for the application of MTP, marketable against a contra-side Resting MTP Periodic Auction Order participating in the Periodic Auction, then the Inbound MTP Periodic Auction Order will be canceled. In this scenario, canceling the inbound MTP Periodic Auction Order is preferred to prevent disrupting the Periodic Auction. Moreover, while the Exchange could alternatively choose to ignore MTP in
•
•
•
•
•
Example 3 represents proposed rule 11.25(g)(1)(C), and illustrates System behavior where a Periodic Auction is in progress, and an inbound Periodic Auction Order is designated with an MTP modifier, and such order matches against a resting contra-side Periodic Auction Order that is participating in the Periodic Auction originating from the same Unique Identifier that is also designated with an MTP modifier. In this scenario, the inbound Periodic Auction Order will be cancelled. Importantly, this behavior is necessary to help ensure that once a Periodic Auction is initiated it will be completed
Here, Firm A's inbound Order 2, a PAE Order to sell 200 @1.00, with a MTP modifier of MTP MCB immediately starts an auction with Firm B's Order 1, a resting PAO Order to Buy 100 @1.00, that is participating in the Periodic Auction. While the Periodic Auction is in progress, Firm A enters Order 3, a PAE Order to Buy 200 @1.00 with an MCB instruction. Applying this proposed behavior to Example 3's fact pattern, when Firm A's Order 3, a PAE Order with an MCB modifier is entered after Periodic Auction has been initiated and Order 3 subsequently matches with Firm A's Order 2 (a PAE Order with a MCB modifier), Order 3 will be cancelled. Without this proposed behavior, Order 3 would otherwise be included in the Periodic Auction, and its MTP Cancel Both
Proposed Rule 11.25(g)(1)(D) would state that when a Periodic Auction is in progress, the System will ignore a Minimum Quantity instruction appended to a MTP Periodic Auction Order or MTP Continuous Book Order and will apply MTP as described in 11.25(g)(1)(A)-(C). Provided, however, when the Periodic Auction has completed (
Additionally, proposed Rule 11.25(g)(1)(D) will provide that when a Periodic Auction is in progress, the System will ignore a Minimum Quantity instruction appended to a MTP Periodic Auction Order or MTP Continuous Book Order and will apply MTP. However, when the Periodic Auction has been completed, Minimum Quantity Orders will be executed in accordance with Rule 11.25(b)(2)(C). To illustrate the behavior of proposed Rule 11.25(g)(1)(D), consider the following example:
•
•
•
Example 4 demonstrates that when a Periodic Auction is in progress the System will ignore the Minimum Quantity instruction on a Periodic Auction Order that is also designated with an MTP modifier. Here, even though the Minium Quantity for Order 1 can be satisfied by Order 2, the System will apply MTP resulting in the cancelation of Order 1. Note that for the purposes of this proposed behavior, it does not matter whether an order's Minimum Quantity instruction could be satisfied. As such, even if Order 1's Minimum Quantity instruction was not satisfied, the result would be the same;
Finally, proposed Rule 11.25(g)(2) addresses how the System will handle inbound MTP Periodic Auction Orders when a Periodic Auction is
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that its proposed MTP functionality is designed to promote the just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest, by enabling Users to better prevent undesirable trading activity such as wash sales or self-trades for not only their Continuous Book Orders, but their Periodic Auction Orders as well. Additionally, by providing Users with a supplemental risk tool that will better enable them to achieve compliance with applicable securities rules and regulations, the proposed rule change will help to further ensure that orders eligible for execution in the Periodic Auction indeed represent genuine trading interest from separate and distinct firms. While the proposed MTP functionality would not operate identically to MTP as it is used in non-Periodic Auction scenarios, the Exchange believes that its proposal strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring Users receive executions in the Periodic Auction and providing Users' the ability to utilize MTP in most trading situations involving Periodic Auctions. Moreover, the Exchange notes that the use of MTP on Periodic Auction Orders is entirely optional, and Users may choose whether they want to utilize MTP. The Exchange conferred with its Periodic Auction Users and despite the limitations described in Rule 11.25(g)(1)(A)-(D), Users still requested that the Exchange implement the proposed functionality. Moreover, the Exchange will issue an Exchange Notice that notifies all Users of the planned implementation date for the proposed MTP functionality and describes the functionality. Accordingly, Users will be fully aware of how MTP will impact their Periodic Auction Orders.
Furthermore, by making clear to Users how MTP will be managed by the System when the Periodic Auction is in progress, Users will be able to anticipate how MTP modifiers will interact with their Periodic Auction Orders and mitigate any confusion that Users may have in using the proposed functionality. In particular, proposed Rule 11.25(g)(1)(A)-(D) identifies the discrete scenarios where the application of MTP is temporarily bypassed by the System so as to not interrupt the Periodic Auction that is in progress, as well as to avoid canceling MTP Continuous Book Orders and denying them an opportunity to execute on the Continuous Book while the Periodic Auction is in progress. By highlighting these four scenarios, Users will have a more concrete understanding of when and how they can expect MTP to provide them with wash sale protection, thereby better informing their trading decisions.
Furthermore, by making clear how the Exchange will ignore Minimum Quantity instructions appended to MTP Orders when a Periodic Auction is in progress, Users will be better informed as to how MTP operates in conjunction with Minimum Quantity restrictions and will be better able to manage their Periodic Auction Orders. The Exchange notes that while ignoring a User's Minimum Quantity instruction for their MTP Periodic Auction Orders is not ideal, this functionality is necessary in order to avoid adding unnecessary complexity to the Exchange's System. As discussed further above, by incorporating Minimum Quantity into the Periodic Auction process it is likely to add latency to this process, leading to longer Periodic Auction times. Rather than impacting Users' Periodic Auction experience, the Exchange has elected to incorporate User feedback and instead choose, in the limited circumstance of when a Periodic Auction is in progress, ignored Minimum Quantity instructions appended to MTP Periodic Auction Orders. The Exchange further notes that while ignoring a User's Minimum Quantity instruction for their MTP Periodic Auction Orders while the Periodic Auction is in progress is not ideal, this functionality is necessary in order to avoid adding unnecessary complexity to the Exchange's System. As discussed further above, by incorporating Minimum Quantity into the Periodic Auction process it is likely to add latency to this process, leading to longer Periodic Auction times. Rather than impacting Users' Periodic Auction experience, the Exchange has elected to incorporate User feedback and instead choose, in the limited circumstance of when a Periodic Auction is in progress, ignored Minimum Quantity instructions appended to MTP Periodic Auction Orders.
Additionally, by making clear that when a Periodic Auction is not in progress that the System will ignore an Inbound MTP Periodic Auction Order's Minimum Quantity instruction, Users will be better informed as to how MTP operates in conjunction with Minimum Quantity restrictions and will be better able to manage their Periodic Auction Orders. As discussed more fully above, when a Periodic Auction is not in progress the System will, upon receipt of an Inbound MTP Periodic Auction Order that also includes a Minimum Quantity instruction, apply MTP as described in Rule 11.9(f), and ignore such order's Minimum Quantity instruction. The MTP modifiers
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are designed to facilitate transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. Based on User feedback, the lack of MTP functionality for Periodic Auction Orders may discourage Users from entering Periodic Auction Orders because they do not have an automated way to systematically prevent undesirable executions resulting from orders originating from a User's algorithm or trading desk, or their related algorithms or trading desks. In this regard, the proposed rule changes may encourage Users to increase their Periodic Auction participation, thereby further enhancing the Periodic Auction liquidity pool and the ability of investors to execute larger orders that may otherwise be difficult to execute without market impact in the continuous market. Additionally, because Periodic Auctions are price-forming, the enhanced liquidity pools would indeed augment Periodic Auction's valuable price discovery function, which may be particularly helpful for investors when trading securities that typically trade with wider spreads.
Finally, the Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change does not unfairly discriminate amongst Users because the proposal will allow all Periodic Auction Users to utilize MTP just as all Users entering Continuous Book Orders may utilize MTP today. In this regard, the proposed amendment will avoid disparate treatment of Users. Furthermore, the bypassing or amending of MTP modifiers, as described in the Examples above, will apply equally to all Periodic Auction Users, regardless of the User's size.
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. MTP is an optional risk tool offered by the Exchange and Periodic Auction Users are free to decide whether to use MTP when submitting Periodic Auction Orders to the Exchange. Similarly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendment poses a burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. Indeed, the proposed rule change is designed to increase competition by offering Periodic Auction Users the ability to better manage their order flow and prevent undesirable executions. In turn, Users may be further incentivized to send additional orders to BYX's Periodic Auction mechanism, thereby fostering competition amongst exchanges, as well as with off-exchange venues (
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
As more fully described above, the proposal will allow Users to utilize MTP functionality when a Periodic Auction is in progress. The Exchange states that MTP allows Users to better manage their order flow to prevent undesirable trading activity such as wash sales or self-trades that may occur as a result of the velocity of trading in today's high-speed marketplace, but that MTP is an optional order instruction and Users are not required to utilize this functionality.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 are 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
SR-CboeBYX-2025-008 on the subject line.
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, for approving Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 in the
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) proposes to amend Rule 4.10 of the Exchange's compliance rule (“CAT Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”)
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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 4.10 of the CAT Compliance Rule to be consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption. Under the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, the Commission extended the existing exemptive relief pursuant to which Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to update the expiration date of the exemption in Rule 4.10(a)(2) from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030.
On February 3, 2020, the Participants filed with the Commission a request for exemptive relief from the requirement in Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan for each Participant, through its CAT Compliance Rule, to require that, to the extent that its Industry Members utilize timestamps in increments finer than nanoseconds in their order handling or execution systems, such Industry Members utilize such finer increment when reporting CAT Data to the Central Repository.
In 2020, the Exchange amended paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 4.10 to reflect this exemptive relief.
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2025.
The language of Rule 4.10(a)(2) has not been changed since that time.
The exemption granted in 2020, however would no longer be in effect after April 8, 2025, unless the period the exemption is in effect is extended by the Commission. Accordingly, on March 24, 2025, the Participants filed with the Commission a request to extend the existing exemptive relief for another five years, until April 8, 2030.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect the extended period set forth in the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, replacing the reference to April 8, 2025 with April 8, 2030. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 4.10 to state:
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2030.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the
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 notes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the amendment to the CAT Compliance Rule will apply equally to all Industry Members that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing these amendments to their CAT Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 1-SA (17 CFR 239.92) is used to file semiannual reports by Tier 2 issuers under Regulation A, an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
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 4.10 of the Exchange's compliance rule (“CAT Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”)
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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 4.10 of the CAT Compliance Rule to be consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption. Under the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, the Commission extended the existing exemptive relief
On February 3, 2020, the Participants filed with the Commission a request for exemptive relief from the requirement in Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan for each Participant, through its CAT Compliance Rule, to require that, to the extent that its Industry Members utilize timestamps in increments finer than nanoseconds in their order handling or execution systems, such Industry Members utilize such finer increment when reporting CAT Data to the Central Repository.
In 2020, the Exchange amended paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 4.10 to reflect this exemptive relief.
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2025.
The language of Rule 4.10(a)(2) has not been changed since that time.
The exemption granted in 2020, however would no longer be in effect after April 8, 2025, unless the period the exemption is in effect is extended by the SEC. Accordingly, on March 24, 2025, the Participants filed with the Commission a request to extend the existing exemptive relief for another five years, until April 8, 2030.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect the extended period set forth in the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, replacing the reference to April 8, 2025 with April 8, 2030. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 4.10 to state:
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2030.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
The Exchange 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 Exchange Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the amendment to the CAT Compliance Rule will apply equally to all Industry Members that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing these amendments to their CAT Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.
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 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
This proposed rule change would amend OCC's Comprehensive Stress Testing & Clearing Fund Methodology, and Liquidity Risk Management Description (“Methodology
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
As the sole clearing agency for standardized equity options listed on a national securities exchange registered with the Commission, and for the other products it clears, OCC is exposed to certain risks, including credit risk and liquidity risk, arising from its Clearing Members' cleared contracts, for which OCC becomes the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer. The management of credit and liquidity risks are essential elements of OCC's risk management framework. Given the critical role OCC plays within the U.S. financial markets, it is vital that OCC maintains sufficient financial resources to cover its exposures under normal and stressed conditions and adequate resources to satisfy liquidity needs arising from its settlement obligations. OCC manages its credit risk related to Clearing Members by collecting margin and Clearing Fund resources based on a Clearing Member's risk profile. OCC manages its liquidity risk by maintaining a reliable and diverse set of committed resources and liquidity providers, establishing a contingent funding plan for additional resources, and performing stress testing that covers a wide range of scenarios.
OCC performs daily stress testing of its financial resources using a wide range of scenarios. OCC's stress testing inventory contains scenarios designed to: (1) assess whether the resources collected are adequate to cover OCC's risk tolerance of a 1-in-50 year statistical market event over a two-year lookback period (“Adequacy Scenarios”); (2) inform the size of OCC's financial resources (“Sizing Scenarios”); (3) measure the potential exposures that Clearing Member Group portfolios present relative to OCC's credit and liquidity resources and determine potential calls for additional collateral, either as margin or as Clearing Fund collateral, or adjust the forms of collateral on deposit (“Sufficiency Scenarios”); and (4) monitor and assess the size of OCC's prefunded financial resources against a wide range of stress scenarios for informational and risk monitoring purposes (“Informational Scenarios”). OCC's stress tests are used for evaluating both credit and liquidity risk, and the output of these scenarios is also used for liquidity resource evaluation. Informational Scenarios are used for risk monitoring and informational purposes, distinct from OCC's Adequacy, Sizing, and Sufficiency Scenarios that inform the size and composition of OCC's mutualized financial resources. Informational Scenarios may be re-categorized as Adequacy, Sufficiency, or Sizing Scenarios upon the approval of OCC's Risk Committee pursuant to the Clearing Fund Methodology Policy.
OCC proposes enhancements to its stress testing methodology in the Risk Policies. OCC proposes three groups of changes as part of the proposed rule change. First, OCC proposes to recategorize certain stress scenarios, including recategorizing certain Informational Scenarios as Sufficiency Scenarios and recategorizing other Sufficiency Scenarios as Informational Scenarios. As a result, six scenarios recategorized from Informational Scenarios to Sufficiency Scenarios would be used to determine potential calls for additional collateral. Eight Sufficiency Scenarios would be recategorized as Informational Scenarios and, therefore, would no longer be used to determine potential calls for additional collateral. Second, OCC proposes to modify the sample list of stress scenarios in the Methodology Description
OCC proposes to amend the Risk Policies to enhance its stress testing methodology. Such changes include the (1) recategorization of certain stress scenarios, (2) modifications to the sample list of stress scenarios in the Methodology Description, and (3) enhanced language related to scenario calibration.
OCC proposes to recategorize certain stress scenarios to enhance its ability to manage risks. As described above, OCC's stress testing inventory is divided into different categories of scenarios, including Sufficiency and Informational Scenarios. Sufficiency Scenarios are designed to measure the potential exposures that Clearing Member Group portfolios present relative to OCC's credit and liquidity resources so that OCC can determine whether to call for additional collateral or adjust the forms of collateral on deposit. OCC's current Sufficiency Scenarios are variations of historical scenarios that attempt to replicate historical events under current market conditions. For example, OCC's current Sufficiency Scenarios include historical scenarios that attempt to replicate the most extreme market rally
OCC proposes to elevate certain Informational Scenarios to Sufficiency Scenarios, including four sector-specific scenarios and two variations of existing Largest Rally/Decline scenarios. OCC proposes to elevate the four sector-specific Informational Scenarios to Sufficiency Scenarios to ensure that it can account for sector-specific exposure when determining the size of its financial resources. The proposed sector-specific scenarios are hypothetical scenarios
OCC also proposes to elevate two other Informational Scenarios to Sufficiency Scenarios. OCC recently implemented Sufficiency Scenarios representing the most extreme market rally and decline moves in 2008, which differed from its existing scenarios in terms of how individual risk factor price shocks are determined.
The proposed rule change would enable OCC to test the sufficiency of its financial resources under a wider range of relevant stress scenarios and respond quickly when OCC believes additional financial resources are necessary. In particular, elevating the sector-specific Informational Scenarios to Sufficiency Scenarios will enhance the existing suite of Sufficiency Scenarios by considering sector-specific exposures. Elevating the 2020 Largest Rally/Decline scenarios with risk driver beta-derived price shocks will also enhance the existing suite of Sufficiency Scenarios by considering a different approach to the determination of price shocks to evaluate how such an event could occur under current market conditions. In their current state as Informational Scenarios, these scenarios do not drive the size of the Clearing Fund or calls for additional resources. However, as Sufficiency Scenarios, they would be used to measure the exposure of OCC's Clearing Fund to the portfolios of individual Clearing Member Groups and determine whether any such exposure is sufficiently large enough to necessitate OCC calling for additional resources in the form of margin collateral or an intra-month resizing of the Clearing Fund. The proposed rule change would thereby improve OCC's ability to measure, monitor, and manage its exposures to its participants and enhance OCC's ability to manage risks in its role as a systemically important financial market utility. OCC's analysis indicates that the proposed Sufficiency Scenarios generate stress test exposures that are generally in line with its current, most impactful Sufficiency Scenarios.
OCC also proposes to recategorize certain Sufficiency Scenarios as Informational Scenarios due to their lack of impact on OCC's Sufficiency Scenario stress testing. Specifically, OCC proposes to recategorize eight historical Sufficiency Scenarios as Informational Scenarios. These historical scenarios attempt to replicate historical events (
In connection with the proposed changes, OCC proposes to modify the sample list of stress scenarios in the Methodology Description to streamline and more clearly present the sample of scenarios codified in the document. The current embedded list represents a subset of Adequacy, Sizing, and
In connection with the proposed changes, OCC also proposes to better align language related to scenario calibration with OCC's current practices. While OCC meets the requirements set out in the Methodology Description regarding scenario calibration, which are to implement a calibration at least annually and review the calibration quarterly, its current practices with respect to scenario calibration cadence and implementation differ slightly from the language used in the document as each quarterly calibration is implemented. The proposed changes use more specific language to memorialize staff responsibilities in the document to ensure they are appropriately carried out. Currently, OCC engages in a quarterly review of stress scenario calibrations and recommends updates to the STWG. Scenario calibration components that are reviewed include risk driver shocks, idiosyncratic scenario volatility shocks, and historical scenario sector shocks, among others. The proposed changes are intended to revise OCC's rules to match its current practices regarding when such scenario calibrations would be implemented, as described below.
The “Stress Testing Model” section sets out the responsibilities of various groups in relation to the scenario calibration process. OCC's current practice is to recalibrate scenario shocks at least quarterly, although the Methodology Description only requires that scenario shocks be implemented at least annually. The amended Methodology Description would align with OCC's current practice and state that scenario shocks are recalibrated and updated at least quarterly. Additionally, the Methodology Description currently states that, on a quarterly basis, or more frequently if OCC's Quantitative Risk Management team (“QRM”) or STWG determines that updates are necessary, QRM recalibrates risk driver shocks and reports its results to the STWG. Currently, the STWG is the group that determines whether more frequent updates are necessary. The amended Methodology Description would align with OCC's current practice to codify that the STWG and not the QRM determines whether more frequent updates are necessary. OCC also proposes to specify that the STWG will review and approve any updates to risk driver shocks prior to implementation, consistent with current practice. Furthermore, under the “Stress Testing Scenario Construction” section, OCC recalibrates scenario shocks at least annually and produces an analysis of the impact of these updates quarterly. As amended, OCC would recalibrate scenario shocks quarterly and produce an analysis of the impact of these updates at least quarterly. Such revisions would conform with the cadence noted above.
In addition, OCC proposes to update the Comprehensive Stress Testing (“CST”) Methodology document to include missing entries from the list of key tenors used for computing volatility beta, which were inadvertently excluded from the document as part of the changes envisaged by OCC's recently approved proposed rule change in connection with enhancements to the modeling approach for implied volatility components within OCC's margin methodology, the System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (“STANS”) and OCC's CST methodology, to better capture the risks associated with short-dated options (“SDO Enhancements”), File No. SR-OCC-2024-016.
Finally, OCC proposes making corrections to errors found in the document. Specifically, OCC is correcting the Liquidity Stress Testing section to accurately state that OCC adheres to a Cover 1 standard for liquidity stress testing and not a Cover 2 standard. Additionally, OCC is making non-substantive typographical edits throughout the document, including replacing a parenthetical with commas and changing the tense of a word in the “Stress Testing Model” section, correcting a spelling error in the “Liquidity Risk Management” section, and updating the list of references.
OCC expects to implement the proposed changes no later than sixty days from the date that OCC receives all necessary regulatory approvals for the filing in light of the technical system changes that are required to implement the additional stress scenarios. OCC will announce the implementation date of the proposed changes by an Information
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act
OCC believes that by ensuring that its documentation and risk management practices remain clear and effective, the proposed changes would protect investors and the public interest by providing that the requirements under the Risk Policies continue to be carried out properly such that OCC continues to maintain sufficient financial resources to cover its exposures under normal and stressed conditions and adequate resources to satisfy liquidity needs arising from its settlement obligations. Accordingly, OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii)
Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)(vi)
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act
The implementation of the new Sufficiency Scenarios would enable OCC to test the sufficiency of its financial resources under a wider range of relevant stress scenarios and respond quickly when OCC believes additional financial resources are required. The proposed changes are designed to improve OCC's ability to measure, monitor and manage its credit exposures to its participants consistent with its regulatory requirements under Rule 17ad-22(e)(4),
Additional proposed changes would ensure that OCC's documentation and risk management practices remain clear and effective. All Clearing Members would be equally subject to the changes. For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
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.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
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-OCC-2025-009 and should be submitted on or before July 18, 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”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1706 of the Exchange's compliance rule (“CAT Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”)
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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 1706 of the CAT Compliance Rule to be consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption. Under the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, the Commission extended the existing exemptive relief pursuant to which Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to update the expiration date of the exemption in Rule 1706(a)(2) from April 8, 2025 to April 8, 2030.
On February 3, 2020, the Participants filed with the Commission a request for exemptive relief from the requirement in Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan for each Participant, through its CAT Compliance Rule, to require that, to the extent that its Industry Members utilize timestamps in increments finer than nanoseconds in their order handling or execution systems, such Industry Members utilize such finer increment when reporting CAT Data to the Central Repository.
In 2020, the Exchange amended paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 1706 to reflect this exemptive relief.
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2025.
The language of Rule 1706(a)(2) has not been changed since that time.
The exemption granted in 2020, however would no longer be in effect after April 8, 2025, unless the period the exemption is in effect is extended by the SEC. Accordingly, on March 24, 2025, the Participants filed with the Commission a request to extend the existing exemptive relief for another five years, until April 8, 2030.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect the extended period set forth in the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, replacing the reference to April 8, 2025 with April 8, 2030. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 1706 to state:
Subject to paragraph (b), to the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member shall record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment up to nanoseconds; provided, that Industry Members that capture timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds must truncate the timestamps after the nanosecond level for submission to CAT, rather than rounding such timestamps up or down, until April 8, 2030.
The Exchange notes that Exchange Rule 1706 as proposed to be amended by this filing, is incorporated by reference into the rulebooks of the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX Pearl”), MIAX Emerald, LLC (“MIAX Emerald”), and MIAX Sapphire, LLC (“MIAX Sapphire”). As such, the amendment of Exchange Rule 1706 as proposed herein will also apply to MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, and MIAX Sapphire members.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
The Exchange 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 Exchange Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the exemptive relief that has been in place for five years, is consistent with the 2025 Timestamp Granularity Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the amendment to the CAT Compliance Rule will apply equally to all Industry Members that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing these amendments to their CAT Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4867-DR), dated May 21, 2025.
Issued on June 24, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Missouri, dated May 21, 2025, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Missouri dated June 23, 2025.
Issued on June 23, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21161B and for economic injury is 211620.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration are Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures,
Submit comments on or before July 28, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Agency Clearance Office at
The SBA and other Federal agencies offer financial assistance and special contracting opportunities for business concerns that are small according to size standards found at 13 CFR 121.201. This form provides information about the business being reviewed to determine whether it is eligible for small business programs. The form also collects information to allow SBA to determine whether the business seeking assistance has one or more affiliates, based on the affiliation rules in 13 CFR 121.103 (contracting and development programs) and 121.301 (financial assistance).
Section 8(b)(6) of the Small Business Act authorizes SBA to determine status as a “small business concern” for a business seeking assistance under the Act, and 13 CFR 121.1008(c) authorizes SBA to collect information about the business subject to a review. SBA conducts formal size determinations when there is a size protest against an apparent awardee of a Federal solicitation that has been fully or partially restricted to small businesses. See 13 CFR 121.1001
This PRA submission is a renewal information collection for SBA Form 355.
Comments may be submitted 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Oregon dated June 24, 2025.
Issued on June 24, 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 Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 211636 and for economic injury is 211640.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Oregon.
On August 27, 2024, notice was published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
On March 17, 2025, notice was published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Divine Egypt” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
The Senior Official performing the functions of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, acting under authority delegated pursuant to an Executive order, has determined pursuant to section 306(a) of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (the Act), 22 U.S.C. 5604(a), that the Government of Sudan has used chemical weapons in violation of international law. In addition, the Senior Official performing the functions of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security has determined and certified to Congress pursuant to section 307(d) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 5605(d)) that it is essential to the national security interests of the United States to partially waive the application of the sanctions required under section 307(a) of the Act with respect to foreign assistance, licenses and other authorizations for the export of items on the U.S. Munitions List (USML), and the licensing of national security-sensitive goods and technology. The following is a notice of the sanctions to be imposed pursuant to section 307(a) of the Act, subject to these waivers.
This notice is effective on June 27, 2025.
Pamela K. Durham, Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Telephone (202) 647-4930.
Pursuant to sections 306(a), 307(a), and 307(d) of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (22 U.S.C. 5604(a), 5605(a), and 5605(d)), on April 24, 2025 the Senior Official performing the functions of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security determined that the Government of Sudan has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals. As a result, the following sanctions are hereby imposed:
1.
The Senior Official performing the functions of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security has determined that it is essential to the national security interests of the United States to waive the application of this restriction.
2.
The Senior Official performing the functions of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security has determined that it is essential to the national security interests of the United States to partially waive the application this sanction to allow for case-by-case adjudication of licenses or other authorizations for defense articles and defense services for entities other than the Government of Sudan on a case-by-case basis for the purposes described pursuant to section 126.1(v) of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
3.
4.
5.
The Senior Official performing the functions of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security has determined that it is essential to the national security interests of the United States to waive the application of this sanction in order to allow the authorization of exports or re-exports of NS-controlled goods or technology to Sudan in accordance with the following policies:
These measures shall be implemented by the responsible departments and agencies of the United States government and will remain in place for at least one year and until further notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “The Art of Generosity: Late Roman Medallions” at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, District of Columbia, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Cumberland & Knox Railroad, LLC (C&K),
C&K states that the Line was authorized for abandonment by a decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission in Docket No. AB-83 (Sub-No. 8) served on October 10, 1985. According to C&K, the Line was subsequently acquired by the State. (Notice 2.)
According to the notice, C&K and the State have entered into an Operating Lease Agreement, dated April 30, 2025,
The Line qualifies for a modified certificate of public convenience and necessity.
This notice will be served on the Association of American Railroads (Car Service Division), as agent for all railroads subscribing to the car-service and car-hire agreement, at 425 Third Street SW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20024; and on the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association at 50 F Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001.
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
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
Written comments should be submitted by July 28, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Greg Young by email at:
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as Federal lead agency, and Kitsap Transit, as local project sponsor and joint lead agency, issue this notice to advise the public that they intend to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Kitsap Transit Fast Ferry Terminal Project (Project) located in the City of Seattle, King County, Washington. The Project would construct a new fast ferry terminal on the downtown Seattle waterfront in order to expand passenger-only ferry (POF) terminal facility capacity.
Comments related to the scope of the EIS for this Project must be received on or before August 11, 2025.
Comments on the scope of the EIS should be directed to: Steffani Lillie, Kitsap Transit Service and Capital Development Director, 60 Washington Avenue, Suite 200, Bremerton, WA 98337; by email to
For FTA: Barney Remington, FTA Environmental Protection Specialist, Region 10,
FTA and Kitsap Transit conducted early scoping during the Project's site screening and alternatives development phase. Early scoping is an optional step in the NEPA process that invites input from stakeholder agencies, tribes, members of the public, and other interested parties early in project planning. Early scoping was also conducted under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) rules regarding expanded scoping (Washington Administrative Code 197-11-410). Kitsap Transit is the lead agency under SEPA. During early scoping, FTA and Kitsap Transit published a notice (87 FR 29212) to advise stakeholder agencies, tribes, and the public about the Project and invited comments on:
• The Project's proposed purpose and need statement developed for the Early Scoping Notice.
• The refined list of screening criteria developed through early public outreach as provided in the Early Scoping Information Report in May 2022.
• The potential impacts and benefits of the Project.
• Other considerations relevant to the evaluation of alternatives (
The comment period closed on June 13, 2022, and a total of 57 comments were received. These comments were summarized in an Early Scoping Summary report in August 2022. Kitsap Transit subsequently conducted preliminary site screening using the criteria refined through early scoping to identify reasonable alternatives. The results of this screening are detailed in the Preliminary Screening and Site Evaluation Report in July 2023. The reports, along with other Project information, are available on the project website:
FTA has identified federal, state and local agencies that will be invited to be involved in the EIS process as cooperating or participating agencies, as well as tribes that will be invited to be involved as participating agencies.
FTA has determined that the Project will not be evaluated as a major project, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 139(a)(7).
The purpose of the Project is to improve regional mobility through the expanded passenger-only ferry (POF) terminal facilities on the downtown Seattle waterfront to:
• Increase vessel docking capacity.
• Increase passenger staging capacity and improve rider amenities, including restrooms and bicycle storage.
• Incorporate shoreside infrastructure and equipment to support electric vessel charging.
• Increase integration of POF travel with other transit modes.
• Maintain or improve rider accessibility to Seattle business, employment, cultural, and retail destinations.
• Create opportunities for growth for regional POF routes throughout the Puget Sound Region.
• Improve access to jobs and housing opportunities in regional growth centers.
The need for the Project is as follows:
• The current POF terminal, Pier 50, is the only public facility of its kind in downtown Seattle, and can only accommodate two vessels at one time.
• The Pier 50 POF terminal facility does not have shoreside space for equipment and infrastructure needed to
• Kitsap Transit's POF service frequency cannot be increased during peak commute periods due to the limited landing site capacity. Current service is limited to 12 landings from the three Kitsap Transit routes within the peak period.
• Terminal docking congestion leads to cascading departure delays and schedule disruptions.
• Access between the more affordable housing on the Kitsap peninsula and the downtown Seattle job center is constrained due to limited frequency of the POF ferry service. Alternatives to POF ferry service include auto/passenger ferry service provided by Washington State Ferries, bus transit, or driving, all of which result in travel times roughly twice as long as Kitsap Transit's POF service routes.
• The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) 2020 Puget Sound Passenger-only Ferry Study identified the lack of landing site capacity in downtown Seattle as a barrier to potential future routes or service expansion.
Kitsap Transit launched the Project to expand POF terminal facility capacity in downtown Seattle. Sites along the downtown Seattle waterfront are limited and in demand for water-dependent uses, and available space is constrained. Development of a new POF terminal facility would improve reliability of this regional transit service by addressing the current limited POF landing site capacity on the Seattle waterfront at the current Pier 50 location.
Three build alternatives and a no-build alternative are anticipated to be evaluated in the EIS, as described in the Preliminary Screening and Site Evaluation Report (July 2023). Kitsap Transit has identified the minimum physical and operational requirements of the Project, which will be integrated into the design of all alternatives and described as follows:
• Four operating slips for vessel operations, with sufficient in-water space to allow simultaneous maneuvering of at least two vessels.
• A high level of pedestrian and multi-modal connectivity to provide riders with access to jobs, services, and connections to other regional transit modes (such as light rail and bus service).
• The ability for queuing and disembarking of up to 700 passengers from all three Kitsap Transit routes simultaneously.
• Vehicle access for deliveries, passenger pick-up/drop-off spaces, and storage/access for bikes and scooters.
• Restrooms and other passenger amenities, such as ticket vending machines and electronic signage.
• Administrative office space, storage for supplies and operating equipment, and maintenance vehicle parking.
Kitsap Transit anticipates that vessel electrification or use of alternative fuels will be required for ferries to achieve state goals for reduced or zero emissions. The new facility would include additional upland and in-water space where infrastructure could be added for future electric charging of vessels or to accommodate the future adoption of other alternative fuels. Although future service expansion or new routes are not planned at this time, the Project would include sufficient additional space to not preclude future expansion of existing service and/or new routes.
Kitsap Transit has identified the following three potential sites on the Seattle waterfront where the Project could be sited: Pier 46 North Apron, Pier 48, and Pier 58. At each site alternative, the Project would include construction of the following elements:
• Overwater structures, including vessel slips and passenger ramps, with capacity for four passenger-only ferries.
• Shoreside electric charging equipment to support future electric vessel operations.
• A terminal building constructed on an over-water pier with passenger queuing and egress space on all three Kitsap Transit routes, and associated crew and office spaces.
• Upland pedestrian and multi-modal pathways to connect passengers with Alaskan Way and existing pedestrian connections.
• Vehicle access for deliveries, passenger pick-up/drop-off spaces, and storage/access for bikes and scooters.
Consistent with NEPA, FTA and Kitsap Transit will evaluate, with input from the public, tribes, and stakeholder agencies, the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the alternatives on the natural, built, and socioeconomic environments. Likely areas of investigation include community facilities, transportation, land use and consistency with applicable plans, land acquisition and displacements, socioeconomics, parks and recreation resources, public services/safety/security, utilities, historic and archaeological resources, visual and aesthetic resources, air quality, noise and vibration, energy use, geology and soils, hazardous materials, safety and security, and ecosystems, including threatened and endangered species and marine mammals. The EIS will evaluate short-term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts. It will also consider reasonably foreseeable impacts. The EIS will also propose measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts.
FTA and Kitsap Transit will comply with all Federal environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the proposed project during the environmental review process.
Below is a tentative schedule for the decision-making process, including environmental review milestones:
As noted in the tentative schedule, FTA and Kitsap Transit intend to complete the EIS for the Project within two years, measured from the date of the publication of this notice to issuance of the Final EIS. FTA and Kitsap Transit will accept public comments on the scope of the EIS (
Notices of public meetings, including hearings, have been, and will continue to be, given through a variety of media providing the time and place of the meeting(s) along with other relevant information. Meeting date, time, and location information can be found on the Project website at
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons and vessels that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. The vessels placed on the SDN List have been identified as property in which a blocked person has an interest.
This action was issued on June 20, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On June 20, 2025, OFAC published the following revised information for the entries on the SDN List for the following persons blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
On June 20, 2025, OFAC also determined that circumstances no longer warrant the inclusion of the following person on the SDN List and their property and interests in property are no longer blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224:
1. SAKAN GENERAL TRADING (a.k.a. ROYAL CREDIT GENERAL TRADING; a.k.a. SAKAN GENERAL TRADING, LLC), 14th Floor, Office 1401, Al Owais Business Tower, 53, 24th Street, Al Sabkha-115, Deira, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one person that has been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of this person are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on June 24, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On June 24, 2025, OFAC determined that that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. MOSQUERA SERRANO, Giovanni Vicente (a.k.a. “El Viejo”; a.k.a. “Giovanny”; a.k.a. “Giovanny San Vicente”), Venezuela; Colombia; DOB 22 Feb 1988; POB San Vicente, Aragua, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Cedula No. 20243384 (Venezuela) (individual) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: TREN DE ARAGUA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations,” 76 FR 44757 (July 27, 2011), as amended by Executive Order 13863 of March 15, 2019, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations,” 84 FR 10255 (March 19, 2019) (E.O. 13581, as amended) for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, TREN DE ARAGUA, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” 66 FR 49079, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended) for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, TREN DE ARAGUA, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
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 26, 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 copies of this collection should be directed to Jason Schoonmaker, (801) 620-2128.
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.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests 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 public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before July 28, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2025.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
No changes have been made to this form. The respondent burden has increased due to the estimated number of receivables averaged over the past year.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2025.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2025.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.