Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 4 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042. Amendment No. 4 changes the certificate of compliance to incorporate a method to determine new loading patterns, introduce a steel plate composite option, introduce the use of MAVRIC software for a confirmatory run of the HSM-MX dose rates, make technical specification changes for consistency and terminology clarification, make various updated final safety analysis report editorial corrections for consistency and clarification, add measured exposures from past loading campaigns, allow use of a blended Portland cement, change the use of the MX-Loading Crane, and clarify the scenarios under which the maximum heat loads can be reduced.
This direct final rule is effective October 14, 2025, unless significant adverse comments are received by August 28, 2025. If this direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID NRC-2025-0070, at
You can read a plain language description of this direct final rule at
George Tartal, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0016, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0070 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC
The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because this action represents a limited and routine change to an existing certificate of compliance (CoC) that is expected to be non-controversial and, accordingly, is unlikely to result in significant adverse public comments. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be reasonably assured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on October 14, 2025. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by August 28, 2025, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or technical specifications (TS).
For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the
This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 4 to CoC No. 1042 and does not include other aspects of the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System design.
On September 29, 2022, TN Americas LLC submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1042. TN Americas LLC supplemented its request on the following dates: March 30, 2023, June 28, 2023, April 22, 2024, November 6, 2024, and February 12, 2025. Amendment No. 4 amends the CoC to make the following changes:
• For the EOS-37PTH, similar to the EOS-89BTH concept submitted under Amendment No. 3, incorporate a method to determine new loading patterns based on the maximum allowable heat load per dry shielded canister (DSC), identified as the maximum allowable heat load configuration (MHLC). The MHLC is applicable to the EOS-37PTH transferred in the EOS-TC125 and stored in the EOS-horizontal storage module (HSM). Two new heat load zone configurations (HLZCs) are applicable to this MHLC.
• Introduce a steel plate composite option for the EOS-HSM. The steel plate composite option allows for the HSM components to be constructed from concrete-filled integrated steel wall forms. The walls are tied together with tie bars and studs that are welded to the inside of the walls to provide concrete reinforcement. When used without distinction, EOS-HSM-SC refers to both the segmented and one-piece base. The EOS-HSM-SC is used only with the flat plate support structure.
• Introduce the use of MAVRIC software for a confirmatory run of the HSM-MX dose rates.
• Technical specification changes for consistency among DSC types and terminology clarification.
• Various updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) editorial corrections for consistency and clarification.
• Add measured exposures from past loading campaigns to highlight that measured exposures are significantly less than calculated exposures.
• Add an additional scope item to allow use of a blended Portland cement that would be certified to the requirements of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C595. The reason for this change is that the cement supplier will no longer provide cement in accordance with ASTM C150 since the supplier is transitioning to a cement with a smaller carbon footprint that includes 10 percent limestone. This change supports continued EOS-HSM and EOS HSM-MX fabrication activities. In support of this additional scope, revise UFSAR sections 8.2.1.3, EOS HSM Horizontal Storage Module; 8.7, References; A.8.2.1.3, HSM-MX Horizontal Storage Module; and A.8.7, References. Also add an editorial clarification to UFSAR chapters 8 and A.8 regarding the use of a blended Portland cement that would be certified to the requirements of ASTM C595.
• Add an additional scope item related to the use of the MX-Loading Crane (LC) for the 61BTH Type 2 DSCs. The reason for this change is that, under Amendment No. 3, TN Americas LLC added detail to demonstrate the single failure proof capability of the MX-LC. That information was provided to demonstrate compliance with CoC No.
• Add an additional scope item to clarify the scenarios under which the maximum heat loads can be reduced for EOS-37PTH. The reason for this change is to clarify the different site-specific conditions that could result in a reduction in the maximum heat load for existing HLZCs and to also note that one could develop new HLZCs based on the MHLC methodology described in UFSAR section 2.4.3.1. Add this clarifying language to the fourth paragraph on UFSAR page 2-10 and to page 2-2 of the TS.
The changes to the aforementioned documents are identified with revisions bars in the margin of each document.
As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report, the NRC performed a safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. The NRC determined that this amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Specifically, the NRC determined that the design of the cask would continue to maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of each evaluated accident condition. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 4 would remain well within the limits specified by 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” Thus, the NRC found there will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.
The NRC determined that the amended TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TS, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured. This direct final rule changes the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System listing in § 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 4 to CoC No. 1042. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the referenced CoC and TS. The referenced TS are identified in the preliminary safety evaluation report. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may, consistent with the license conditions under § 72.212, load spent nuclear fuel into TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 4 to CoC No. 1042.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC revises the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System design listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements; therefore, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act is not applicable.
Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment. This environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact can be tracked with identification number NEPA ID EAXX-429-00-000-1743148474.
The action is to amend § 72.214 to change the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 4 to CoC No. 1042.
This direct final rule amends the CoC for the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks to allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at reactor sites in casks with the approved modifications under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 4 changes the CoC to incorporate a method to determine new loading patterns, introduce a steel plate composite option, introduce the use of MAVRIC software for a confirmatory run of the HSM-MX dose rates, make TS changes for consistency and terminology clarification, make various UFSAR editorial corrections for consistency and clarification, add measured exposures from past loading campaigns, allow use of a blended Portland cement, change the use of the MX-LC, and clarify the scenarios under which the maximum heat loads can be reduced.
On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was
The TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, can include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.
This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 4 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits.
The NRC has also determined that the design of the cask as modified by this rule would continue to maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. The NRC documented its safety findings in the preliminary safety evaluation report.
The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 4 and not issue the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 4 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. The environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed action.
Approval of Amendment No. 4 to CoC No. 1042 would result in no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources.
No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.
The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, Amendment No. 4,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.
This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and TN Americas LLC. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if (1) it notifies the NRC in advance; (2) the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC; and (3) the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On March 24, 2017 (82 FR 14987), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.
On September 29, 2022, and as supplemented on March 30, 2023, June 28, 2023, April 22, 2024, November 6, 2024, and February 12, 2025, TN Americas LLC submitted a request to amend the NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System as described in section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 4 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System under the changes described in Amendment No. 4 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.
Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report and environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on
The NRC has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62. This direct final rule adds an amendment to CoC No. 1042 for the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System, as currently listed in § 72.214. The amendment consists of the changes in Amendment No. 4 previously described, as set forth in the amended CoC and TS.
Amendment No. 4 to CoC No. 1042 for the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System was initiated by TN Americas LLC and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements or an NRC request for amendment. Certificate of compliance holders like TN Americas LLC are not within the scope of the backfit rule in § 72.62 because they do not hold a 10 CFR part 72 license. Additionally, Amendment No. 4 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 4. These changes do not affect existing users of the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System, and the previous Amendment No. 3 continues to be effective for existing users. Although current users of this storage system may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 4, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. Therefore, Amendment No. 4 does not meet the definition of backfitting in § 72.62.
For these reasons, Amendment No. 4 to CoC No. 1042 does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14215, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. OIRA determined that this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2025-01-08, which applied to all The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747-8F, and 747-8 series airplanes. AD 2025-01-08 required identifying the part number, and the serial number if applicable, of the Captain's and First Officer's seats and applicable on-condition actions for affected seats. AD 2025-01-08 also required a one-time detailed inspection and repetitive checks of the horizontal movement system (HMS) of the Captain's and First Officer's seats and applicable on-condition actions. Since the FAA issued AD 2025-01-08, the FAA determined that AD 2025-01-08 contains an error when providing conditions for taking credit using a previous revision of the service information. This AD requires the actions of AD 2025-01-08 and revises paragraph (j) of this AD to clarify which actions are not required. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 13, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 19, 2025 (90 FR 9382, February 12, 2025).
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by September 12, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Boulevard, MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; phone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Julie Linn, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone 206-231-3584; email
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Julie Linn, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone 206-231-3584; email
The FAA issued AD 2025-01-08, Amendment 39-22932 (90 FR 9382, February 12, 2025) (AD 2025-01-08), for all The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747-8F, and 747-8 series airplanes. AD 2025-01-08 superseded AD 2019-22-02, Amendment 39-19781 (84 FR 67854, December 12, 2019), and required identifying the part number, and the serial number if applicable, of the Captain's and First Officer's seats and applicable on-condition actions for affected seats, including inspecting the fore and aft and vertical manual control levers for looseness, installing serviceable seats, and doing a seat functional test after any cable adjustment. AD 2025-01-08 also required a one-time detailed inspection and repetitive checks of the HMS of the Captain's and First Officer's seats and applicable on-condition actions, including clearing the seat tracks of foreign object debris (FOD), overhauling the HMS, and replacing the horizontal stabilizer. AD 2025-01-08 was prompted by reports of uncommanded fore and aft movement of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. The FAA issued AD 2025-01-08 to address uncommanded fore and aft movement of the Captain's and First Officer's seats which, during a critical part of a flight such as takeoff or landing, could cause a flight control obstruction or unintended flight control input, which could result in the loss of the ability to control the airplane.
Since the FAA issued AD 2025-01-08, the FAA determined that paragraph (j) of AD 2025-01-08 inadvertently provided credit for the actions in both paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2025-01-08 for a seat that met the criteria in any row in Table 1 to paragraph (j) of AD 2025-01-08. The FAA intended to provide credit for the actions in paragraph (g) of AD 2025-01-08 if the airplane records show that a seat meets the conditions pertaining to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018; and credit for the actions in paragraph (h) of AD 2025-01-08 if the airplane records show that an Ipeco Captain's or First Officer's seat meets the conditions pertaining to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018.
The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of March 19, 2025 (90 FR 9382, February 12, 2025).
The FAA also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of March 19, 2025 (90 FR 9382, February 12, 2025).
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This AD retains all requirements of AD 2025-10-08, except that this AD corrects paragraph (j) of AD 2025-01-08. This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of the urgency to correct AD 2025-01-08 to ensure compliance. AD 2025-01-08 does not fully address the unsafe condition because it allows operators to forego complying with required corrective actions and inspections when the Captain's or First Officer's seat has not met the necessary conditions. Paragraph (j) of AD 2025-01-08 incorrectly provides credit for all actions in the AD when the credit should be tied to the service information applicable to the airplane configuration. Without limiting the extent of the credit given, the unsafe condition still exists. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In addition, for the foregoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 162 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the FAA to provide cost estimates for the optional terminating action for the repetitive checks specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 13, 2025.
This AD replaces AD 2025-01-08, Amendment 39-22932 (90 FR 9382, February 12, 2025) (AD 2025-01-08).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded fore and aft movement of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. The FAA is issuing this AD to address uncommanded fore and aft movement of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncommanded fore or aft seat movement during a critical part of a flight, such as takeoff or landing, and could cause a flight control obstruction or unintended flight control input, which could result in the loss of the ability to control the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023, do an inspection to determine the part number, and serial number as applicable, of the Captain's and First Officer's seats, and all applicable on-condition actions identified in, and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the Captain's and First Officer's seats can be conclusively determined from that review.
Except as specified by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023. Actions identified as terminating action in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023, terminate the applicable required actions of this AD, provided the terminating action is done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023.
(1) Where the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023, refers to the original issue date of this service bulletin, this AD requires using January 16, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2019-22-02, Amendment 39-19781 (84 FR 67854, December 12, 2019) (AD 2019-22-02), which was superseded by AD 2025-01-08).
(2) Where the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023, refers to 72 months after the original issue date of this service bulletin, this AD requires using 36 months after January 16, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2019-22-02).
(3) Where the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023, refers to the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin, this AD requires using the March 19, 2025 (the effective date of AD 2025-01-08).
If the airplane records show that an Ipeco Captain's or First Officer's seat installed on an airplane meets the conditions in any of the eleven rows for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 1, dated July 17, 20218, in Table 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD, then the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD are not required for that seat. If the airplane records show that an Ipeco Captain's or First Officer's seat meets the conditions in any of the three rows for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018, in Table 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD, then the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD are not required for that seat.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: For material that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Julie Linn, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone 206-231-3584; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following material was approved for IBR on March 19, 2025 (90 FR 9382, February 12, 2025).
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023.
(ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2023.
(4) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Boulevard, MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; phone 562-797-1717; website
(5) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(6) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4 (Frequency and Voltage Protection Settings for Synchronous Generators, Type 1 and Type 2 Wind Resources, and Synchronous Condensers), Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 (Frequency and Voltage Ride-through Requirements for Inverter-Based Resources), and a definition of “Ride-through,” which the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted in response to a Commission directive. In addition, the Commission directs NERC to clarify documentation requirements for legacy equipment needed to support an exemption request pursuant to Reliability Standard PRC-029-1; to consider whether, and if so how, to address a total of two exception- and exemption-related issues raised by commenters; and to submit an informational filing that assesses the reliability impact of the exemptions to Reliability Standard PRC-029-1.
This rule is effective August 28, 2025.
1. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
2. While the final rule largely adopts the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's
3. In Order No. 901, the Commission stressed the need for comprehensive and timely Reliability Standards to address the well-documented reliability impacts of IBRs.
4. As discussed in detail below, it appears that commenters have articulated colorable concerns that were not raised in comments to prior Commission orders in this proceeding. We believe that these matters deserve a more complete vetting in the NERC standards development process given the lack of discussion in the record. Accordingly, we direct NERC through its standard development process to determine whether, and if so how, to account for these concerns. If NERC deems appropriate, NERC may develop appropriate solutions for the two issues raised by commenters beyond the narrow parameter set forth in Order No. 901 for exceptions or exemptions from ride-through requirements. Within 12 months of the effective date of this final rule, we direct NERC to submit to the Commission its determination and, if it deems appropriate, any proposed modifications to Reliability Standard PRC-029-1.
5. While providing latitude to address these two concerns raised by commenters, NERC and industry should be mindful of the Commission's overarching concerns expressed in Order No. 901 that a comprehensive and timely resolution is needed so that IBR performance no longer poses a threat to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. With that in mind, to the extent that NERC develops modifications pertaining to long-lead time projects, this final rule should serve as notice that future IBR projects must fully satisfy the ride-through performance requirements (and not later dates as suggested by some commenters).
6. Section 215 of the FPA provides that the Commission may certify an Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), the purpose of which is to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.
7. In Order No. 901, the Commission explained, among other things, that the majority of installed IBRs use grid-following inverters, which can track grid state parameters (
8. Therefore, the Commission directed NERC to develop new or modified Reliability Standards pertaining to IBRs in four areas: (1) data sharing; (2) model validation; (3) planning and operational studies; and (4) performance requirements.
9. The Commission mandated that the new or modified ride-through Reliability Standards must require registered IBRs to continue to inject current within an established no trip-zone and perform frequency support during Bulk-Power System disturbances. The Commission directed that the new or modified Reliability Standards must establish requirements for post-disturbance ramp rates and phase lock loop synchronization, and other known causes of IBR tripping or momentary cessation.
10. In response to commenters on the NOPR preceding the issuance of Order No. 901, the Commission declined to direct NERC to specifically reference Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standards in new or modified Reliability Standards developed in response to the Order. The Commission concluded that the record in the proceeding provided no support for the conclusion that the performance requirements of IEEE standard 2800-2022 (IEEE 2800-2022)
11. The Commission also recognized that some older IBRs may have equipment limitations such that IBR owners would have to physically replace their hardware and may have settings and configurations that IBR owners could not modify through software updates, and in such
12. On November 4, 2024, in response to Order No. 901, NERC submitted for Commission approval the proposed definition of the term Ride-through for the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (Glossary of Terms), proposed Reliability Standards PRC-024-4 and PRC-029-1, the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plans and effective dates for Reliability Standards PRC-024-4 and PRC-029-1, and the retirement of currently effective Reliability Standard PRC-024-3. NERC asserted that proposed Reliability Standards PRC-024-4 and PRC-029-1 would ensure that applicable Bulk-Power System-connected resources ride-through system disturbances.
13. NERC stated that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 uses the term Ride-through, which NERC proposed to include in the NERC Glossary of Terms. NERC explained that the term Ride-through would mean that “the plant/facility remains connected and continues to operate through voltage or frequency system disturbances.”
14. NERC explained that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4 removes language relating to IBR functionality in Requirements R1 through R4 because IBR performance requirements are included in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1. Instead, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4 would maintain capability-based requirements for synchronous generators, synchronous condensers, and type 1 and type 2 wind resources.
15. NERC explained that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 would address directives in Order No. 901 by establishing frequency and voltage ride-through performance requirements for generator owners of IBRs.
16. Under proposed Requirement R1, each generator owner of a NERC-registered IBR must “ensure the design and operation is such that each IBR meets or exceeds Ride-through requirements, in accordance with the `must Ride-through zone' as specified in Attachment 1” of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1, except in four conditions to protect hardware from incurring damage, as specified by the Standard.
17. NERC explained that it adopted the IEEE 2800-2022's terminology for “must ride-through zones,” which are defined in terms of voltage and frequency magnitude and time duration.
18. NERC asserted that proposed Requirement R1 is responsive to the directive that NERC develop performance-based Reliability Standards that require IBRs to ride-through voltage system disturbances and require post-disturbance ramp rates to return to pre-disturbance levels.
19. In addition, Attachment 1, Tables 1 and 2 (the Tables) establish performance voltage ride-through criteria, which include minimum ride-through time requirements for voltage per unit by operation region.
20. Under proposed Requirement R2, each generator owner of a NERC-registered IBR must adhere to voltage ride-through performance criteria during system disturbances, unless a documented hardware limitation exists in accordance with Requirement R4.
21. Under proposed Requirement R3, each generator owner of a NERC-registered IBR must ensure that its IBR adheres to ride-through requirements during frequency excursion events by continuing to exchange current and remain electrically connected in accordance with the “must ride-through zone,” as specified in the proposed Reliability Standard's Attachment 2, and while the “absolute rate of change of frequency (RoCoF) magnitude is less than or equal to 5 [hertz]/second, unless a documented hardware limitation exists in accordance with Requirement R4.”
22. NERC asserted that proposed Requirement R3 is responsive to the directive that NERC develop performance-based Reliability Standards that require IBRs to ride-through frequency system disturbances. Additionally, NERC contended that proposed Requirement R3 satisfies the directive that IBRs inject current and perform frequency support during a disturbance by requiring that IBRs remain connected and fulfill control and regulation functions to qualify as riding-through a system disturbance.
23. Proposed Requirement R4 would allow each generator owner of an existing legacy IBR to obtain an exemption to the ride-through requirements of Requirements R1 through R3. Specifically, Requirement R4 provides that “[e]ach Generator Owner identifying an IBR that is in-service by the effective date of PRC-029-1, has known hardware limitations that prevent the IBR from meeting Ride-through criteria as detailed in Requirements R1-R3, and requires an exemption from specific Ride-through criteria shall . . . [d]ocument information supporting the identified hardware limitation.”
24. Each generator owner of an IBR must provide the information supporting the identified hardware limitation (unless it is considered proprietary by the original equipment manufacturer) to each planning coordinator, transmission planner, transmission operator, and reliability coordinator in the footprint in which the legacy IBR is located.
25. NERC explained that it determined that an exemption process for generator owners of legacy IBRs for voltage and frequency performance requirements is necessary. In its petition, NERC stated the standard drafting team determined the “anticipated difficulty of Generator Owners having to wholesale retrofit and redesign legacy facilities currently in operation would be unreasonable and unduly burdensome, and it could lead to undesirable impacts on reliability.”
26. NERC asserted that proposed Requirement R4 meets the directive that NERC determine whether the new or modified Reliability Standards should provide a limited and documented exemption from the voltage ride-through requirements for existing IBRs and equipment.
27. Regarding the Commission directive to NERC to develop new or modified Reliability Standards to mitigate the reliability impacts to the Bulk-Power System of approved exemptions, NERC claimed that the reliability impacts of voltage and frequency ride-through exemptions are mitigated by existing Reliability Standards that address the responsibilities of transmission planners, planning coordinators, reliability coordinators, and transmission operators.
28. On December 19, 2024, the Commission issued a NOPR proposing to approve proposed Reliability Standards PRC-024-4 and PRC-029-1 and the proposed definition of the term Ride-through.
29. The Commission also proposed to find that NERC reasonably determined it was appropriate to provide an
30. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received 20 sets of comments.
31. Commenters generally support the NOPR proposal to approve the proposed definition of the term Ride-through
32. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we adopt the NOPR proposal and approve proposed Reliability Standards PRC-024-4 and PRC-029-1 and the proposed definition of Ride-through as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. Below, we discuss the following matters: (A) addition of the defined term Ride-through to the NERC Glossary of Terms; (B) proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4; (C) proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1; and (D) the Commission directive that NERC submit an informational filing.
33. As mentioned above, in the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve NERC's proposal to define the term Ride-through as “the plant/facility remains connected and continues to operate through voltage or frequency system disturbances.”
34. Commenters generally support the proposed definition of the term Ride-through.
35. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we adopt the NOPR proposal to approve the addition of the term Ride-through to the NERC Glossary of Terms. We find that the addition of the term will provide a clear and consistent understanding of the term when used in Reliability Standards. Further, the defined term Ride-through, when considered with proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1, is responsive to the directives in Order No. 901 to develop Reliability Standards that establish performance ride-through requirements for IBRs.
36. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest and as consistent with applicable directives in Order No. 901.
37. Commenters generally support, or do not oppose, the approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4.
38. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we adopt the NOPR proposal to approve proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We find that removal of references to IBRs in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4 because IBRs will be subject to ride-through performance requirements under proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 is consistent with Order No. 901. In Order No. 901, the Commission provided NERC the discretion to modify PRC-024-3 or to develop a comprehensive Reliability Standard to satisfy the IBR ride-through performance requirement directives of Order No. 901.
39. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve proposed
40. While the Commission sought comment on all aspects of the proposed approval, the Commission expressed a particular interest in comments (as well as supporting materials where applicable) on: (1) the IBR performance requirement in Requirement R1; (2) the absolute rate of change of frequency in Requirement R3;
41. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received comments about the proposed Standard on the following topics, discussed below: (1) approving the proposed Reliability Standard; (2) requests for a new exception under Requirement R1 for certain HVDC-connected IBRs and a new exemption under Requirement R4 for long-lead time projects; and (3) requests for clarity regarding the documentation necessary to secure exemptions.
42. Many commenters generally support the Commission's proposal to approve proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1,
43. Among commenters supporting approval of Reliability Standard PRC-029-1, aligned ISOs/RTOs appreciate that the terms “must ride-through zones” and “operation regions” in Requirement R1 are drafted in a manner that ensures consistency with IEEE 2800-2022 and reduces confusion.
44. Ørsted asserts that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 is not just and reasonable or in the public interest because its requirements could cause project delays or cancellations, contributing to resource adequacy risks.
45. Certain commenters express concerns about individual provisions in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1, discussed in more detail below.
46. Other commenters raise concerns generally with the Standards drafting process.
47. In its reply comments, NERC explains that it provided for a fair and open stakeholder process by following its rules for providing notice and opportunity for public comment, due process, openness, and a balance of interests in developing the Standard through multiple ballot periods. Further, NERC avers it followed its Rule 321 procedure for the NERC Board of Trustees to act when a ballot pool has failed to approve a proposed Reliability Standard in response to a Commission directive; on the fourth ballot the Standard was approved.
48. NERC disputes the assertion that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 will result in undue discrimination against IBRs relative to synchronous generators under proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4, disagreeing with commenter's assertions
49. Additionally, NERC explains that the proposed Standard was narrowly developed to avoid undue negative effects on competition beyond what is necessary for reliability and to reflect consideration of the “different natures of synchronous generators and IBRs.”
50. Ørsted asserts that the proposed Reliability Standard did not consider “other appropriate factors” under Order No. 672 because NERC's petition did not discuss why exceptions due to hardware limitations in IEEE 2800-2022, such as are applicable to HVDC technology, could not be incorporated into the proposed Standard.
51. In its petition and reply comments, NERC explains that it adopted IEEE 2800-2022 terminology for “must ride-through zones” and “operation regions;” but that it considered and rejected ride-through criteria more stringent than set forth in IEEE 2800-2022 due to industry comments raised during the September 2024 Technical Conference.
52. Elevate, NYSRC, UCS, and WIRAB filed comments noting inconsistencies between proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 and IEEE 2800-2022 and pointing to IEEE 2800-2022 as the preferred option for ride-through standards to address the Commission's concerns and directives in Order No. 901.
53. Elevate avers that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 lacks many of the technical “details, clarifications, and equipment considerations” that are contained in IEEE 2800-2022.
54. NERC replies that the Commission gave it discretion to consider “whether and how to reference IEEE standards” in Order No. 901.
55. NYSRC requests that the Commission remand proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 to NERC for revisions to address a series of “ambiguities, impractical requirements, or contradictions with the apparent intent” of the Standard that makes it difficult to meet the requirements as written.
56. Ørsted, Elevate, and NYSRC seek clarification on several terms and provisions in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1. Ørsted claims that the undefined term in-service has neither a clear nor objective criteria to ensure it will be enforced in a consistent and non-preferential manner.
57. Elevate contends that the language of proposed Requirements R2.1.1 and R2.1.3 conflict because Requirement R2.1.3 specifies performance only when the voltage is less than 0.95 per unit and is within the continuous operating range whereas Requirement R2.1.1 speaks to general performance in the continuous operating range and does not specify voltage criteria.
58. LA PSC is concerned that IBRs that satisfy the design element to ride-through grid disturbances may not have their equipment set to meet the ride-through requirements and requests that generator owners be required to provide documentation that the IBR is programmed or set to meet ride-through requirements.
59. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we adopt the NOPR proposal to approve proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 fulfills the IBR performance requirement directives of Order No. 901. We find that Requirements R1 through R3 will strengthen the reliability of the Bulk-Power System by addressing abnormal tripping, interruption of current injection, and reduced power output. Further, we conclude that NERC developed a reasonable process in Requirement R4 for generator owners to seek an exemption to Requirements R1 through R3 for hardware limitations.
60. We disagree with commenters' arguments that the proposed Reliability Standard does not satisfy multiple Order No. 672 factors or reflects issues with NERC's standards development process itself. In particular, we are not persuaded by Ørsted's claim that the exemption process in proposed Requirement R4 fails to provide clear and objective criteria for compliance because the phrase “in-service date” is undefined.
61. Regarding the divergence of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 from IEEE 2800-2022, in Order No. 901 the Commission responded to commenters' suggestion of the need to align with or reference directly IEEE 2800-2022 “in accordance with good utility practice as examples of technical minimum requirements.”
62. We decline to adopt Tesla's recommendation that the Commission direct NERC to add a requirement that new IBRs “have grid-forming capabilities where technically and economically feasible.”
63. We decline to direct NERC to revise the Standard to make additional clarifications or define terms as requested by some commenters. We find the Standard sufficiently clear and unambiguous regarding what is required of generator owners. However, we encourage NERC to consider the potential need for incremental changes to the Standard to address concerns, such as NYSRC's concern the Standard's reference to the “high side” could lead to noncompliance with the language of the Standard, or the possibility that IBRs may be noncompliant with the Standard if they fail to ride-through any voltage magnitude. We encourage NERC and its Regional Entities to use their available tools—appropriate enforcement discretion, targeted oversight activities, compliance and enforcement guidance, and the compliance feedback loop to standards development—to ensure consistency, reasonably address noncompliance that does not impact reliability, and to identify, assess, and implement any need for additional improvements to the Standard through its approved processes.
64. In the NOPR, the Commission, in proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-029-1, also proposed to
65. With one exception, commenters generally support the exemption request process in the proposed Standard. Clean Energy Associations support the availability of an exemption from frequency ride-through requirements in the proposed Standard because a large percentage of IBR fleets could not comply with the frequency ride-through requirements, imperiling resource adequacy.
66. Aligned ISOs/RTOs, while supporting proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 as “a broadly-applicable standard that is applied in a manner that limits exemptions to limited and rare circumstances,”
67. LA PSC argues that the exemption process as written in proposed Requirement R4 favors legacy IBR owners at the expense of Bulk-Power System reliability and that there is no way to determine the impact of the exemptions until 2028 or 2029 when the Standard is fully implemented.
68. Multiple commenters note their understanding that the exemption “only applies to the limited portion of the frequency or voltage ride-through zone for which the pre-existing hardware was not designed to meet.”
69. In its reply comments, NERC explains that the exemption for legacy IBRs in proposed Requirement R4, including the 12-month timeframe to request an exemption, is consistent with the directive in Order No. 901 to determine whether to provide a limited and documented exemption to existing IBRs and equipment. NERC also notes that an IBR that receives an exemption must perform per the capability of the plant while accounting for the limitation to mitigate the reliability impact of the exemption. NERC claims that it found that exemptions were necessary because otherwise the proposed Standard would require entities to take units offline to retrofit or risk noncompliance.
70. Several commenters, including Invenergy, Ørsted and Clean Energy Associations seek an additional exemption for HVDC-connected IBRs with choppers.
71. Commenters also explain that designing HVDC-connected IBRs with choppers that can comply with the ride-through requirements of Attachment 1 cannot be done in a cost-effective and timely manner. Clean Energy Associations explain that there is no cost-effective option yet available to meet the full ride-through requirements, and manufacturers may not be able to meet compliance deadlines for the proposed Standard.
72. Commenters assert that the 10 second cumulative duration requirement in Attachment 1 could contribute to resource adequacy issues in certain parts of the country as new HVDC-connected IBRs with choppers would not be able to come online. Similarly, LIPA contends that the “infeasible requirements” of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 “will delay or impede resources critical to maintaining adequate generation capacity to meet future system needs.”
73. Ørsted claims that the Standard was not developed in an open and fair manner, as required by an Order No. 672 factor. First, it avers this is because the process did not align the Standard with “global standards and practices”
74. Commenters advance a range of proposals in response to the concerns they identify with HVDC-connected IBRs with choppers complying with proposed Attachment 1. Clean Energy Associations request that the Commission direct NERC to revise proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 to include a provision that recognizes the thermal limit of HVDC-connected IBRs with choppers as in IEEE 2800-2022.
75. In its reply comments, NERC explains that the proposed Standard was drafted consistent with the limited discretion provided to NERC in Order No. 901 to include exemptions for existing IBRs.
76. NERC believes an exemption for HVDC-connected IBRs with choppers exceeds the discretion provided to NERC in Order No. 901. However, NERC requests that should the Commission determine that HVDC-connected IBRs with choppers warrant an exemption, that it “be as specific as possible regarding the technology included and the timeframe that should be considered for any such exemption.”
77. In response to NERC's reply comments, Invenergy answers that unlike the exemption process in Requirement R4 that only applies to existing legacy IBRs, consistent with the exemption directives in Order No. 901, the relief it seeks for HVDC-connected IBRs with choppers would apply to existing and future equipment. Invenergy also avers that a modification to proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 to avoid damage to chopper equipment is consistent with Order No. 901's language “that permit IBR tripping only to protect the IBR equipment.”
78. Several commenters express concern that limiting exemptions under
79. Several commenters raise concerns about the economic and financial impact of providing an exemption only to legacy IBRs. Ørsted explains that for IBR projects that have already made non-refundable financial commitments, it can make projects uneconomical and result in delays to change the design, acquire new real estate, obtain new permits, or procure new equipment, as would be necessitated by the exemption process in Requirement R4.
80. Commenters also raise the concern that failing to account for long-lead time projects could contribute to resource adequacy constraints. Clean Energy Associations claim to have identified 22.1 gigawatts (GW) of resources from members that have executed interconnection agreements or procured equipment that are not yet in-service and cannot fully comply with the requirements of the Standard. Clean Energy Associations assert that this quantity of resources is large enough that failing to accommodate these resources will “affect resource adequacy and reliability by preventing their timely completion” and reduce electric reliability on net by delaying the interconnection of IBR facilities.
81. Ørsted and Dominion claim the exemption process in proposed Requirement R4 ignores extensive comments during the standard development process that raised the concern that the exemption process does not account for projects that are in active development with contracted equipment not technically capable of satisfying the ride-through requirements of Requirements R1 through R3.
82. Clean Energy Associations claim that the ability for resources with executed contracts to secure an exemption is more consistent with the ability of any resource—new, existing, or planned—“to obtain exemptions under PRC-024.”
83. Commenters offer proposals for how to incorporate long-lead time projects into the exemption process in proposed Requirement R4. Most proposals center around providing exemptions to IBR projects that have executed generator interconnection agreements and executed design, procurement, and/or construction agreements by the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-029-1.
84. In comparison, Dominion repeatedly describes the 12-month period to seek an exemption under Requirement R4 as “arbitrary,”
85. NERC rejects the assertion that, because synchronous generators and IBRs are allegedly similarly situated, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 will result in undue discrimination against IBRs relative to synchronous generators under proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4. NERC explains that in Order No. 901, the Commission directed NERC to develop proposed Reliability Standards that account for the technical differences between IBRs and synchronous generators because the currently effective Reliability Standards “may not account for the material technological differences” in responding to
86. We appreciate commenters' concerns that the equipment limitations of HVDC-connected IBRs with choppers that may physically prevent them from fully complying with the ride-through provisions of Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 and their request for exemptions for long-lead time projects that have executed interconnection agreements and executed design, procurement, and/or construction agreements.
87. Accordingly, we direct NERC, through its standard development process, to determine whether, and if so how, to account for: (1) the equipment limitations of HVDC-connected IBRs with choppers which may physically prevent them from fully complying with the ride-through provisions of Reliability Standard PRC-029-1;
88. If NERC determines that extension of the exemption to long-lead time projects is warranted, we suggest that it consider including unequivocal provisions regarding the necessary showing to qualify for the exemption,
89. As the Commission explained in the NOPR in this proceeding, “if too many generators are exempt from the frequency and/or voltage Ride-through requirements, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 may fail to address the reliability gaps associated with IBRs tripping or entering momentary cessation in aggregate that it is intended to address.”
90. We decline the requests of LA PSC, Clean Energy Associations, and Dominion to adjust the exemption request process under proposed Requirement R4 and do not find the 12-month time frame to request an exemption arbitrary. Consistent with the directive in Order No. 901 to provide only a limited and documented exemption, the 12-month request period ensures there is a limited, but reasonable, amount of time in which a generator owner of a legacy IBR can request an exemption.
91. We adopt the NOPR proposal to defer determination of whether the new or modified Reliability Standards mitigate the reliability impacts to the Bulk-Power System of exemptions until after NERC files Milestone 4 Reliability Standards with the Commission by November 4, 2026.
92. We decline to adopt Clean Energy Associations' position that IBRs and synchronous resources are similarly situated with regard to demonstrating a need for exemptions. IBRs and synchronous resources are not similarly situated due to differences in physical limitations and capabilities and in inherent responses to changing system conditions, which necessitate different approaches for promoting reliability under proposed Reliability Standards PRC-024-4 and PRC-029-1.
93. We decline to adopt WIRAB's recommendation that the Commission direct NERC to explore the concept of IBR ride-through maximization because it is unnecessary. As explained by multiple commenters, the generator owner of the IBR must ride-through all parts of the voltage and frequency ride-through curves for which it does not receive an exemption.
94. We are unpersuaded by Ørsted's argument that the Standard was not developed in an open and fair manner. Ørsted provides no evidence that the process NERC employed was defective besides claiming it did not seek to align with “global standards and practices.”
95. Proposed Requirement R4 of PRC-029-1 includes a process for generator owners of legacy IBRs to provide documentation to the compliance enforcement authority to secure an exemption. Proposed Requirement R4.1.3 requires that the documentation shall include: “[i]dentification of the specific piece(s) of hardware causing the limitation.”
96. EEI, Clean Energy Associations, and Invenergy claim it may not be possible for older legacy IBRs to identify specific pieces of hardware for which an exemption is necessary, as required by Requirement R4, because original equipment manufacturers, among other things: could be out of business; no longer support the IBR equipment in a legacy resource; or otherwise, are unable to, provide the requested documentation.
97. EEI avers that even where original equipment manufacturers provide support, IBR generator owners may need the support of third-party engineering consultants to support a conclusion that there is a hardware limitation that prevents compliance with proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1.
98. Clean Energy Associations argue that a detailed identification of “specific piece(s) of hardware” would require new testing of legacy equipment, which could take multiple years to complete and be excessively costly outside of the laboratory, or may be impossible for resources that have been operating in the field for many years.
99. Commenters raise a series of concerns about the difficulty generator owners may experience in providing the documentation necessary to secure an exemption. Clean Energy Associations state that a generator owner could be subject to uncapped sanctions of up to $1.6 million per day due to an inability to identify the hardware limitation, at least with any greater specificity than naming the inverter or turbine in question.
Additionally, Clean Energy Associations and Invenergy aver that the phrase “but is not limited to” in Measure M4 is sufficiently vague that it would leave the decision about what types of evidence beyond “damage curves provided by” the original equipment manufacturer is acceptable to the subjective interpretation of the compliance enforcement authority, which could result in evidence requirements varying by region or over time.
100. Commenters offer a wide range of potential modifications to the documentation requirement of proposed Requirement R4. Clean Energy Associations suggest that documentation requirements in proposed Measure M4 should match the language from Requirement R3 of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4 to prevent undue discrimination against IBRs that are similarly situated as synchronous generators with regards
101. Invenergy explains that including examples of additional types of documentation would ensure that IBRs are treated in a similar manner to synchronous generators under proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4, which allows demonstration of an equipment limitation in the form of a dated email or letter that contains such demonstration.
EEI recommends that generator owners be allowed to submit an internal engineering analysis for older legacy IBRs.
102. UCS requests that proposed Requirement R4.1 be modified to require generator owners to submit a “preliminary non-binding estimate of the cost and time required to replace or retrofit the affected hardware, and an estimate of how long the IBR would need to be offline to implement the change, if applicable.” UCS believes this information would allow the relevant authority to understand anticipated impacts to the grid of the exemption process in Requirement R4.
103. UCS also requests that the final rule be updated to include the NOPR's citation to the footnote in proposed Requirement R4.2 that states to “the extent the original equipment manufacturer considers any material to be proprietary, the Generator Owner is required to share this proprietary material only with the [compliance enforcement authority].”
104. In its reply comments, NERC states that it considered the concern that legacy IBRs may face difficulty providing documentation sufficient to secure an exemption in developing the Standard. NERC continues: “The concept of demonstrating operational limitations for interconnected generation is neither new nor novel, as dynamic model capability requirements have been in place for generators since the first version of mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards.” NERC further explains that hardware limitations can be found through testing of facilities that can find relays or equipment that may cause the unit to trip, as in Reliability Standards MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1.
105. Both Elevate and WIRAB recommend updating proposed Requirement R4.2
106. NYISO states that Requirement R4 suggests that the compliance enforcement authority will make the final determination as to whether an exemption is accepted, but it does not establish a specific role for the registered entity receiving information concerning the exemption and hardware limitations under Requirement R4.2. NYISO supports giving the registered entity the opportunity to provide feedback to the compliance enforcement authority if warranted and believes that this is the intention of receiving and having the right to request additional information described in Requirement R4. NYISO requests that either the Commission or NERC confirm that intention.
107. We are persuaded that it may not be possible for generator owners of legacy IBRs to provide identification of the “specific piece(s) of hardware causing the limitation.”
108. Therefore, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, we direct NERC, within 12 months of the effective date of this final rule, to address the concern by developing responsive modifications to proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1. NERC could satisfy the directive by modifying Requirement R4 or the corresponding Measure to expand the non-exhaustive list for IBR generator owners of acceptable types of evidence of a hardware limitation that prevents the IBR from meeting the ride-through criteria in proposed Requirements R1 through R3. For example, an expanded non-exhaustive list could consist of damage curves provided by the original equipment manufacturer, internal engineering analyses, analysis by third-party consultants, study results, experience from an event, manufacturer's advice, and design data.
109. We decline to adopt Invenergy's position that IBRs and synchronous generators should be treated similarly as it relates to documenting an equipment limitation. We note that IBRs and synchronous generators are not similarly situated when it comes to responses to the same disturbances on the Bulk-Power System.
110. We decline UCS's request to modify Requirement R4.1 to require
111. We decline to adopt the recommendations of Elevate and WIRAB to more clearly define the details of what should be provided by an entity seeking a hardware exemption to its planning coordinators, transmission planners, and reliability coordinators in proposed Requirement R4.2, as it is unnecessary. We find that proposed Requirement R4.2.1 gives these entities the capability to request additional, necessary information.
112. We decline to direct NERC to include the footnote in proposed Requirement R4.2 into the body of the Requirement because it is unnecessary; we are approving proposed Requirement R4.2 and the associated footnote.
113. We find it unnecessary to confirm that the intention of providing exemption information under proposed Requirement R4.2 to registered entities is for the purpose of providing feedback to the compliance enforcement authority, as requested by NYISO. We believe it best to leave it to NERC's discretion to decide whether it wishes to explain the purpose of proposed Requirement R4.2.
114. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to direct NERC, pursuant to 18 CFR 39.2(d), to develop and submit two informational filings pertaining to requests for exemptions by generator owners of legacy IBRs from the ride-through requirements of Requirements R1 through R3. The Commission proposed directing that 12 and 24 months after the conclusion of the 12-month period for requesting an exemption, NERC submit an informational filing with specified data related to the reliability impact of the exemptions for (1) each Interconnection and (2) each reliability coordinator area (within that Interconnection) within the United States. The Commission also proposed directing NERC to include in each informational filing an analysis of the reasons that responsible entities provide for exemptions.
115. NERC strongly recommends that the Commission only require a single informational filing due 18 months after the conclusion of the exemption request period. NERC explains that the 12-month filing requirement may be too soon for it to review and issue determinations for all exemption requests and to provide an analysis of the capacity exempted. Similarly, NERC asserts that the 24-month filing will not assist in providing the Commission with timely information and may also include redundant information contained in the first filing. NERC argues that a single informational filing 18 months after the conclusion of the exemption request period will produce a filing quicker than the 24-month filing timeline and will be more comprehensive than the 12-month filing.
116. Aligned ISOs/RTOs indicate their support for the proposed informational filings to allow parties to assess the impact of any exemptions granted.
117. WIRAB believes that the Commission will not have all the information to accurately evaluate the necessity of hardware exemptions for legacy IBRs and potential risks to the Bulk-Power System without additional information. WIRAB recommends that the informational filings include analyses of the reason(s) entities requested exemptions and the existing ride-through capabilities of legacy IBRs that received an exemption, as well as a risk assessment study for each Interconnection of how the exemptions may contribute to reliability risk on the Bulk-Power System.
118. LA PSC requests that the deadlines for NERC to submit informational filings should be shortened from 12 and 24 months to 6 and 12 months, respectively, to reflect its request that the exemption request timeline be shortened from 12 months to 6 months.
119. UCS states that the Commission should require and review informational filings on the impact of exemptions and any Corrective Action Plans that NERC files with the Commission as part of its Milestone 4 Reliability Standards due by November 4, 2026.
120. We modify the NOPR proposal and, pursuant to 18 CFR 39.2(d), we direct NERC to develop and submit a single informational filing, to the Commission, 18 months after the conclusion of the exemption request period in proposed Requirement R4 to assess the reliability impacts of the exemptions in a timely and comprehensive manner. We are persuaded by NERC's comments that a single filing at 18 months will provide the Commission with more comprehensive information than would be received in a filing at 12 months, and more timely information than would be received in a filing at 24 months. We find that it will likely take NERC more than 12 months to compile the data requested in the first filing, and a filing at 24 months will not be timely and may include redundant information.
121. We direct NERC to include in its informational filing an assessment of the reliability impacts of the exemptions with the following data for (1) each Interconnection and (2) each reliability coordinator area (within that
• Total number of IBRs for which NERC-registered generator owners will be subject to compliance with Reliability Standard PRC-029-1;
• Aggregated MW capacity of IBRs for which NERC-registered generator owners will be subject to compliance with Reliability Standard PRC-029-1;
• Total number of IBRs for which NERC-registered generator owners requested exemptions;
• Aggregated MW capacity of IBRs for which NERC-registered generator owners requested exemptions;
• Total number of IBRs for which NERC-registered generator owners were granted exemptions;
• Aggregated MW capacity of IBRs for which NERC-registered generator owners were granted exemptions;
• Total number of granted exemptions by exemption type (voltage and/or frequency);
• Aggregated MW capacity of granted exemptions by exemption type (voltage and/or frequency);
• Total number of granted exemptions by IBR type (wind, solar PV, BESS, fuel cell); and
• Aggregated MW capacity of granted exemptions by IBR type (wind, solar PV, BESS, fuel cell).
122. The informational filing must also include an analysis of the reasons that entities provided for exemptions (both granted and denied),
123. The FERC-725G information collection requirements are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The Commission solicits comments on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
124. The Commission bases its paperwork burden estimates on the additional paperwork burden presented by Reliability Standards PRC-024-4 and PRC-029-1, as modified, and new Reliability Standards, respectively, and the directive for NERC to submit one informational filing related to ride-through exemption requests.
125. The responses and burden hours for Years 1-3 will total respectively as follows:
•
•
• The annual cost burden for each year One to Three is $1,643,897.60 for Reliability Standard PRC-024-4; and $5,470,342.40 for Reliability Standard PRC-029-1.
126.
127. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Kayla Williams, Office of the Executive Director, email:
128. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your comments to the Commission, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-7285]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
129. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
130. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
131. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-024-4 (included in FERC-725G) will apply to approximately 1,294 generator owners, and proposed Reliability Standard PRC-029-1 (included in FERC-725G) will apply to approximately combined 1,372 BES IBR generator owners and non-BES IBR generator owners in the United States.
132. We view this as a minimal economic impact for each entity. Accordingly, we certify that the proposed Reliability Standards PRC-024-4 and PRC-029-1 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
133. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
134. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
135. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
136. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined this regulatory action is not a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. Accordingly, OIRA has not reviewed this regulatory action for compliance with the analytical requirements of Executive Order 12866.
137. This final rule is effective August 28, 2025. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of OIRA, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
By the Commission.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The following entities filed comments:
The following entity filed a motion for leave to comment out of time:
The following entities filed reply comments:
The following entity filed an answer:
The following entities filed motions to intervene:
The following entity filed a motion to intervene out of time:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the Olympia Harbor Days Tugboat Races from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on August 31, 2025, to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of Budd Inlet during the event. During the enforcement period, entry into the regulated area is prohibited without permission from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1309 will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on August 31, 2025.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Anthony Pinto, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone 206-217-6051, email
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1309 for the Olympia Harbor Days Tugboat Races in Budd Inlet, WA, from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on August 31, 2025. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waterways of Budd Inlet during this event. Our regulation for the marine events within the Northwest District, § 100.1309(a), specifies the location of the regulated area for the
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce Seattle's Seafair Fleet Week moving vessels security zones from July 29, 2025 through August 5, 2025, to safeguard these vessels from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or events or a similar nature. The regulation for these security zones identifies all navigable waters within 500 yards of the designated participating vessels for the Parade of Ships in Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington as the regulated areas for this event. During the enforcement periods no person or vessel may enter or remain in the established security zones without authorization from the Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound (COTP) or their designated representative(s). The COTP has granted general permission for vessels to enter the outer 400 yards of the security zones provided they operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain course unless required to maintain speed by the navigation rules.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1333 will be enforced for the security zones identified in the
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Anthony Pinto, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Puget Sound, Waterways Management Division; by telephone 206-217-6051, or email
The Coast Guard will enforce the security zone in 33 CFR 165.1333 for Seattle's Seafair Fleet Week from 8 a.m. on July 29, 2025 through 8 p.m. on August 5, 2025. This action is being taken to safeguard the vessels from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or events of a similar nature. The regulation for these security zones, § 165.1333(a) specifies the location of the security zone which encompasses all navigable waters within 500 yards of each designated participating vessel in the Parade of Ships while each vessel is in the COTP's zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-10.
The following is a list of the designated participating vessels for the Parade of Ships as defined by § 165.1333(b); USS SOMERSET (LPD-25), USS JACK H. LUCAS (DDG-125), and LESCHI (Official Number 1192697).
During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.1333(c), no person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zones without permission of the COTP or their designated representative(s). The COTP has granted general permission for vessels to enter the outer 400 yards of the established security zones as long as those vessels within the outer 400 yards of the security zones operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain course unless required to maintain speed by the navigation rules. The COTP may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies with the enforcement of security zones.
All vessel operators who desire to enter the inner 100 yards of the security zones or transit the outer 400 yards at greater than minimum speed to maintain course must obtain permission from the COTP or their designated representative(s) by contacting the on-scene Coast Guard patrol craft on VHF Ch 13 or 16. Requests must include the reason why movement within the area is necessary. Vessel operators granted permission to enter the security zones will be escorted by the on-scene Coast Guard patrol craft until they are outside of the security zones and must obey any lawful direction or order of the COTP or designated representative.
In addition to this notice in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone on the waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon, Intracoastal Waterway, and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, Florida (FL). This rule is substantially like the “east zone” security zone published elsewhere in the Coast Guard's regulations. The Coast Guard will only enforce this rule when the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be present. This action is necessary to protect the official party, public, and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature.
This rule is effective without actual notice from July 29, 2025, through September 30, 2025. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 21, 2025, through July 29, 2025.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Guerschom Etienne, Waterways Management Division, Sector Miami, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 786-295-9051, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is necessary to immediately implement enhanced security protections of presidential and VIP personnel in and around this portion of the waterway. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this security zone as soon as practicable.
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 the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Miami has determined the security zone is necessary to protect the official party, public, and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. This temporary final rule is needed to ensure the security of vessels and navigable waters during visits to the Mar-a-Lago Club by the President, the First Family, and other persons under the protection of the Secret Service.
This temporary final rule establishes a security zone from July 21, 2025, through September 30, 2025. The security zone will overlap with the already existing “east zone” in 33 CFR 165.785. All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within the security zone unless authorized by the COTP Miami or a designated representative. This section will be enforced when the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be present at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida until September 30, 2025. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service.
The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-FM). Coast Guard patrol assets will also be on-scene with flashing energized blue lights the security zone is in effect.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) This security zone impacts only a small area of the Lake Worth Lagoon, Intracoastal Waterway, and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, Florida (FL). (2) The security zone will be enforced only President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be present at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida until September 30, 2025. (3) Vessel traffic will be permitted to transit the area at other times. (4) The rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP to transit the zone.
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 would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
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
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a security zone impacts only a small area of the Lake Worth Lagoon, Intracoastal Waterway, and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, Florida (FL), and will be enforced only President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be present. 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 is amending 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)
(1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within the security zone unless authorized by the COTP Miami or a designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at (305) 535-4472 or may contact a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(e)
This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.
In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 81, revised as of July 1, 2025, in section 81.334, in the table
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of pyroxasulfone in or on the nut, tree, group 14-12; the fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; and almond hulls. K-I Chemical U.S.A., Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective July 29, 2025. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 29, 2025 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0212, is available at
Charles Smith, Director, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document might apply to them.
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA is issuing this rulemaking under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .”
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period
The EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket at
In the
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for pyroxasulfone including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyroxasulfone is summarized in this unit. In an effort to streamline its publications in the
EPA previously published several tolerance rulemakings for pyroxasulfone, in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure to pyroxasulfone and established tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections of those rulemakings that remain unchanged, as described further in this rulemaking. Specific information on the risk assessment conducted in support of this action, including on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by pyroxasulfone, can be found in the document titled “Pyroxasulfone: Human Health Risk Assessment for the New Section 3 Uses on Fruit, Small, Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit, Subgroup 13-07F and Nut, Tree, Group 14-12
For a discussion of the Toxicological Profile of pyroxasulfone, see Unit III.A. of the rulemaking published in the
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level, generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD), and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
More detailed information on the toxicological endpoints for pyroxasulfone used for human health risk assessment can be found in the Pyroxasulfone Human Health Risk Assessment that is in the docket.
Much of the exposure assessment remains unchanged from the rulemaking of October 29, 2018, as described in Unit III.C. of that rulemaking, although
Acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using DEEM-FCID Version 4.02. This software uses 2005-2010 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA).
For both the acute and chronic risk assessments EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT). Residues in or on food were based on tolerance level residues for all commodities with the following exceptions, which were based on tolerance level residues adjusted to include additional metabolites of concern for risk assessment: cereal grains (
For a summary of the drinking water numbers used, see Unit III.C. of the rulemaking of October 29, 2018. For the acute dietary risk assessment, a water concentration value of 210 parts per billion (ppb) was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, a water concentration value of 174 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
The registered and proposed uses of pyroxasulfone are not expected to result in residential exposure. There are no proposed residential uses at this time and existing registrations with residential use sites are not expected to result in residential handler or post-application exposure based on the label directions and directed use patterns (soil-directed application), providing no residential contribution to the aggregate. Therefore, the acute and chronic exposure estimates represent all aggregate exposure.
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to pyroxasulfone and any other substances, and pyroxasulfone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that pyroxasulfone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
1.
2.
3.
• The toxicity database for pyroxasulfone is complete.
• The neurotoxicity database, including acute, subchronic and chronic studies, shows adverse effects from pyroxasulfone exposure in mice, rats and dogs, with dogs showing the most sensitivity. Although the DNT study indicated offspring are more sensitive to neurotoxic effects of pyroxasulfone, the dose-response is well characterized for neurotoxicity and a NOAEL is identified; therefore, there is no residual uncertainty with regard to neurotoxic effects for which a 10X must be retained.
• The available database shows evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses and offspring in a DNT study in rats and in a developmental study in rabbits following in
• There are no residual uncertainties in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues or residues based on field trials. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground or surface water modeling used to assess exposure to pyroxasulfone in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by pyroxasulfone.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term aggregate risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated total food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate points of departure (POD) to ensure that an adequate margin of exposure (MOE) exists.
Acute dietary (food and drinking water) risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the aPAD; they are 4.0% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, which is the population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate. Chronic dietary (food and drinking water) risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 70% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, which is the population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate.
The Agency has determined that the quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (
Therefore, based on the risk assessment and information described in this document, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to pyroxasulfone residues.
For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method, see Unit IV.A. in the rulemaking of October 29, 2018.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for residues of pyroxasulfone in or on any of the petitioned-for commodities associated with this regulatory action.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyroxasulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.07 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.07 ppm; and almond, hulls at 0.15 ppm.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerance actions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or on the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because tolerance actions like this one are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. However, EPA's 2021
This rule finalizes tolerance actions under the FFDCA, which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). The Agency's consideration is documented in the pesticide-specific registration review documents,
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is issuing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for certain chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs) and a Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN) and are also subject to an Order issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA. The SNURs require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or processing of any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use in the SNUR. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the conditions of that use for that chemical substance. In addition, the manufacture or processing for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the required notification; made an appropriate determination regarding that notification; and taken such actions as required by that determination.
This rule is effective on September 29, 2025. For purposes of judicial review, this rule shall be promulgated at 1 p.m. (EST) on August 12, 2025.
The docket for this action, identified under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2024-0074, is available online at
TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the factors in TSCA section 5(a)(2).
EPA is finalizing SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for the chemical substances identified in this document. These chemical substances were the subject of PMNs and a Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN) and are also subject to an Order issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A), as required by the determinations made under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(B). The SNURs identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying TSCA Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4). The SNURs require persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use in the SNURs to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
Previously, EPA proposed SNURs for these chemical substances in the
This action applies to you if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances identified in this document. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also apply to certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification requirements under TSCA (
Chemical importers are subject to TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612), the requirements in 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127, 19 CFR 127.28, and 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. Importers of chemical substances in bulk form, as part of a mixture, or as part of an article (if required by rule) must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and Orders under TSCA, including regulations issued under TSCA sections 5, 6, 7 and Title IV.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.20 or 40 CFR 725.920 (for microorganisms), any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance identified in this document are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN reporting requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances identified in this document. This analysis, which is available in the docket, is briefly summarized here.
A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. If a SNUN is submitted, costs are an estimated $45,000 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $14,500 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN (including registration for EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)), and the payment of a user fee. Businesses that submit a SNUN would be subject to either a $37,000 user fee required by 40 CFR 700.45(c)(2)(ii) and (d), or, if they are a small business as defined at 13 CFR 121.201, a reduced user fee of $6,480 (40 CFR 700.45(c)(1)(ii) and (d)). These estimates reflect the costs and fees as they are known at the time of this rulemaking.
EPA has also evaluated the potential costs associated with the pre-existing export notification requirements under TSCA section 12(b) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. For persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country. The total costs of export notification will vary by chemical, depending on the number of required notifications (
Unit II. of the proposed rule provides general information about SNURs, and additional information about EPA's new chemical program is available at
To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. As discussed in Unit II.E. of the proposed rule, EPA concluded that the proposed significant new uses were not ongoing. If EPA subsequently determines that such a use was ongoing as of the date of publication of the proposed rule and did not cease prior to issuance of the final rule, EPA will not designate that use as a significant new use in the final rule. EPA has no information to suggest that any of the significant new uses identified in this rule meet this criterion.
As discussed in the
In the unlikely event that before a final rule becomes effective a person begins commercial manufacturing (including importing) or processing of the chemical substances for a use that is designated as a significant new use in that final rule, such a person would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until all TSCA prerequisites for the commencement of manufacture or processing have been satisfied.
Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the internet at
SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require development of any particular new information (
In the absence of a rule, TSCA order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50 or 40 CFR 725.160 [for microorganisms]). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. To assist with EPA's analysis of the SNUN, submitters are encouraged, but not required, to provide the potentially useful information as identified for the chemical substance in Unit III.C. of the proposed rule.
EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Furthermore, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h). For more information on alternative test methods and strategies to reduce vertebrate animal testing, visit
The potentially useful information described in Unit III. of the proposed rule may not be the only means of providing information to evaluate the chemical substance associated with the significant new uses. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA sections 5(e) or 5(f). EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information about human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
EPA received public comments on the proposed SNURs and prepared a Response to Comment document that provides the Agency responses. The comments and the Response to Comment document are available in the docket. As described in the Response to Comment document, EPA is finalizing these SNURs with the following changes (listed by PMN Number and proposed 40 CFR citation):
• For P-20-175 (40 CFR 721.11897), P-20-176 (40 CFR 721.11898), and P-20-178 (40 CFR 721.11899), based upon review of submitted data indicating the substances are expected to have low environmental hazard, EPA removed the proposed release to water requirements and also modified the proposed hazard communication requirements by removing the proposed reference to 40 CFR 721.72(g)(3); and,
• For P-22-86 (40 CFR 721.11918), P-22-122 (40 CFR 721.11919), P-22-179 (40 CFR 721.11920), P-22-180 (40 CFR 721.11921), and P-22-129 (40 CFR 721.11923), EPA incorporated the requirements of 40 CFR 721.72(e) to include a
In addition to the changes to respond to comments, EPA identified the need to revise the following proposed SNURs (listed by PMN Number and proposed 40 CFR citation):
• For P-22-13 (40 CFR 721.11913) and P-22-15 (40 CFR 721.11914), EPA made minor edits to the significant new use regarding the use of dust collection in the industrial, commercial, and consumer activities paragraph to be consistent with the Order.
• For P-18-356 (40 CFR 721.11894), P-18-357 (40 CFR 721.11895), P-19-188 (40 CFR 721.11896), P-21-32 (40 CFR 721.11901), P-21-33 (40 CFR 721.11902), P-21-96 (40 CFR 721.11905), P-21-98 (40 CFR 721.11906), P-21-126 (40 CFR 721.11907), P-21-175 (40 CFR 721.11908), P-22-10 (40 CFR 721.11912), P-22-13 (40 CFR 721.11913), P-22-15 (40 CFR 721.11914), P-22-37 (40 CFR 721.11914), P-22-54 (40 CFR 721.11917), and P-22-162 (40 CFR 721.11924), EPA simplified the requirements in the hazard communication paragraph by referencing 40 CFR 721.72(g)(3)(iii) rather than referencing 721.72(g)(3) and writing out the required environmental hazard statement.
• For P-20-178 (40 CFR 721.11899), EPA updated the generic name of the chemical substance. A provisional generic name was used in the proposed rule.
EPA designates the date of publication of the proposed rule as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing,
In Unit III.C. of the proposed rule, EPA provided the following information for each chemical substance subject to these SNURs:
• PMN number (the CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this document).
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) or Accession Number (if assigned for confidential chemical identities).
• Basis for the SNUR (
• Potentially useful information.
The regulatory text section of this document specifies the chemical substances and activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits and other uses designated, may be claimed as CBI, as discussed in more detail in Unit II.C. of the proposed rule.
In addition, as discussed in Unit III.B. of the proposed rule, these SNURs include PMN substances that are subject to Orders issued under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A), as required by the determinations made under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(B). Those TSCA Orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. As such, the SNURs identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying TSCA Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be
This action establishes SNURs for new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because a significant new use rule for a new chemical under TSCA section 5 is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
According to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to SNURs have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per submission. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. Although some small entities may decide to pursue a significant new use in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was 7 in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2020, 9 in FY2021, 9 in FY2022, 23 in FY2023, and 7 in FY2024, and only a fraction of these submissions were from small businesses.
In addition, the Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $37,000 to $6,480. This lower fee reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping cost of submitting a SNUN to about $14,500 per SNUN submission for qualifying small firms. Therefore, the potential economic impacts of complying with these proposed SNURs are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in the
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by SNURs, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by these SNURs. In addition, the estimated costs of this action to the private sector do not exceed $183 million or more in any one year (the 1995 dollars are adjusted to 2023 dollars for inflation using the GDP implicit price deflator). The estimated costs for this action are discussed in Unit I.D.
This action will not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it is not expected to have a substantial direct effect on 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. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this action.
This action will not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk. Since this action does not concern a human health risk, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health also does not apply. Although the establishment of these SNURs do not address an existing children's environmental health concern because the chemical uses involved are not ongoing uses, SNURs require that persons notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or processing of the identified chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by the SNUR. This notification allows EPA to assess the intended uses to identify potential risks and take appropriate actions before the activities commence.
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This action does not involve any technical standards subject to NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
This action is subject to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Imports, Labeling, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(1) The chemical substance identified generically as acid N-(diarylalkyl)-, carbopolycyclic alkenyl, methyl ester (PMN P-20-176) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The requirements of this section do not apply to quantities of the substance after they have been completely reacted or cured.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(i) Completely reacted or cured; or
(ii) Embedded into a permanent solid polymer form that is not intended to undergo further processing, except mechanical processing or physical blending.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(b)
(1)
(2)
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, 2613, and 2625.
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) It is a significant new use to manufacture, process, or use the microorganism other than in a
(A) Enzyme production occurs by submerged fermentation (
(B) Any fermentation of solid plant material or insoluble substrate to which the microorganism fermentation broth is added after the standard industrial fermentation is completed is initiated only after the inactivation of the microorganism as delineated in § 725.422(d).
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 4 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042. Amendment No. 4 would change the certificate of compliance to incorporate a method to determine new loading patterns, introduce a steel plate composite option, introduce the use of MAVRIC software for a confirmatory run of the HSM-MX dose rates, make technical specification changes for consistency and terminology clarification, make various updated final safety analysis report editorial corrections for consistency and clarification, add measured exposures from past loading campaigns, allow use of a blended Portland cement, change the use of the MX-Loading Crane, and clarify the scenarios under which the maximum heat loads can be reduced.
Submit comments by August 28, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration of only comments received on or before this date.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID NRC-2025-0070, at
You can read a plain language description of this direct final rule at
George Tartal, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0016, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0070 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Because the NRC considers this action to be non-controversial, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, certificate of compliance, or technical specifications.
For a more detailed discussion of the proposed rule changes and associated analyses, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the
This rule would be limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 4 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042 and would not include other aspects of the TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System design.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). The NRC requests comment on this proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14215, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. OIRA determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) Model GE90-90B, GE90-94B, GE90-110B1, and GE90-115B engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a manufacturer investigation that revealed certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks were manufactured from powder metal material suspected to contain iron inclusion. This proposed AD would require replacement of affected HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks with parts eligible for installation. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 12, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For GE material identified in this proposed AD, contact GE, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: (513) 552-3272; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7178; 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
The FAA was notified by the manufacturer of the detection of iron inclusion in a turbine disk manufactured from the same powder metal material used to manufacture certain HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks for GE Model GE90-90B, GE90-94B, GE90-110B1, and GE90-115B engines. Further investigation by the manufacturer determined that the iron inclusion is attributed to deficiencies in the manufacturing process and may cause reduced material properties and a lower fatigue life capability, which may result in premature fracture and uncontained failure. The manufacturer also informed the FAA that additional risk assessments determined that there were no incidents of premature fracture and uncontained failure associated with the discovery of this iron inclusion material on these engines but concluded that replacement of the affected HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks is necessary to prevent any future failure events. The exposure of HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks to iron inclusion, if not addressed, could result in uncontained debris release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0926, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2023 (GE GE90-100 SB 72-0926, Revision 01). This material specifies the affected part numbers, serial numbers, and cyclic removal thresholds for the HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require replacement of certain HPT stage 1 disks and HPT stage 2 disks with parts eligible for installation. Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD includes all part numbers and serial numbers for affected HPT stage 1 disks that have been scrapped or that have already been removed from GE Model GE90-90B and GE90-94B engines, and certain part numbers and serial numbers for affected HPT stage 1 disks and HPT stage 2 disks that have been scrapped or that have already been removed from GE Model GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B engines. GE GE90 SB 72-1229, dated October 11, 2023, includes these part numbers and serial numbers. Therefore, the part numbers and serial numbers for affected HPT stage 1 disks listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD take precedence over those listed in GE GE90 SB 72-1229, dated October 11, 2023.
GE GE90-100 SB 72-0926, Revision 01 includes cyclic removal thresholds for certain parts that have already been removed or scrapped while this proposed AD requires those parts to be removed from service and replaced before further flight.
GE GE90-100 SB 72-0926, Revision 01 uses the term “high pressure turbine rotor (HPTR),” while this proposed AD uses the term “high pressure turbine (HPT).”
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect two engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that one engine installed on an airplane of U.S. registry would require replacement of the HPT stage 1 disk, and one engine installed on an airplane of U.S. registry would require replacement of the HPT stage 2 disk. 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
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 September 12, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to the following General Electric Company (GE) Model engines:
(1) GE90-90B and GE90-94B engines with a high pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 disk having a part number and serial number identified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD installed; and
(2) GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B engines with an HPT stage 1 disk or HPT stage 2 disk having a part number and serial number identified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD or Table 1 or Table 2 of GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 72-0926, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2023 (GE GE90-100 SB 72-0926, Revision 01) installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by a manufacturer investigation that revealed certain HPT stage 1 disks and HPT stage 2 disks were manufactured from powder metal material suspected to contain iron inclusion. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent premature fracture and uncontained failure of the HPT stage 1 disks and HPT stage 2 disks. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained debris release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD, remove each affected HPT stage 1 disk and HPT stage 2 disk from service and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(1) For HPT stage 1 disks and HPT stage 2 disks with a part number and serial number identified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, before further flight.
(2) For HPT stage 1 disks with a part number and serial number identified in Table 1 of GE GE90-100 SB 72-0926, Revision 01, that are not identified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, at the next piece-part exposure or before exceeding 4,650 cycles since new (CSN), whichever occurs first.
(3) For HPT stage 2 disks with a part number and serial number identified in Table 2 of GE GE90-100 SB 72-0926, Revision 01, that are not identified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, at the next piece-part exposure or before exceeding 11,300 CSN, whichever occurs first.
For affected HPT stage 1 disks having greater than 4,650 CSN on the effective date of this AD, the replacement required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD may be deferred up to 50 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, a “part eligible for installation” is any HPT stage 1 disk or HPT stage 2 disk having a part number and serial number that is not identified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD or Table 1 or Table 2 of GE GE90-100 SB 72-0926, Revision 01.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, a “piece-part exposure” is when the affected HPT stage 1 disk or HPT stage 2 disk is removed from the engine and completely disassembled.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to:
For more information about this AD, contact Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7178; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 72-0926, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For GE material identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: (513) 552-3272; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a food additive petition, submitted by the Spoonbill Foundation, proposing that we amend our food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of 4′-phosphopantetheine (4′-PPT) as a nutrient in medical food.
The food additive petition was filed on July 3, 2025.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Marissa Santos, Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-8160.
Under section 409(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), we are giving notice that we have filed a food additive petition (FAP 5A4842), submitted on behalf of Spoonbill Foundation by Immix Law Group, 500 NW Naito Pkwy, Unit G, Portland, OR 97209. The petition proposes that we amend our food additive regulations in part 172 (21 CFR 172), “Food Additives Permitted For Direct Addition to Food For Human Consumption,” to provide for the safe use of 4′-PPT as a nutrient in medical food.
The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(k) because granting of this petition would become effective “for substances added directly to food that are intended to remain in food through ingestion by consumers and are not intended to replace macronutrients in food.” In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a food additive petition, submitted by APIX Biosciences US LLC, proposing that we amend our food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of cholesterol as a source of sterol in food for honeybees at a level between 0.009 and 0.5% by weight of the food.
The food additive petition was filed on July 11, 2025.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Wasima Wahid, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5857,
Under section 409(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), we are giving notice that we have filed a food additive petition (FAP 2322), submitted by APIX Biosciences US LLC, 2580 NE Rivercrest Rd., Fayetteville, AR 72701. The petition proposes that we amend our food additive regulations in 21 CFR part 573—Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals to provide for the safe use of cholesterol as a source of sterol in food for honeybees at a level between 0.009 and 0.5% by weight of the food.
The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(r) because it is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
Guidance and request for information.
This document contains limited interpretive guidance to help small employers select high-quality, low-cost “pooled employer plans” or “PEPs.” This document also solicits information about prevailing pooled employer plan market practices. The Department will consider the responses as part of a process aimed at developing a potential regulatory safe harbor or safe harbors that comprehensively encourage market participants to offer and employers to join such plans. These efforts, taken pursuant to President Trump's January 20, 2025, Memorandum titled “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis,” are designed to reduce investment costs for workers saving for their retirement, thereby improving their lives. These efforts also will help small employers provide more attractive benefits to potential hires, drawing discouraged workers into the labor force.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the following addresses no later than September 29, 2025.
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) encourages interested persons to submit their comments on this request for information online. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1210-AC10, by either of the following methods:
Scott Ness, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, (202) 693-8500. This is not a toll-free number.
In this document, the Department is taking initial steps to build on positive market developments to help small employers join high-quality, low-cost retirement plans called pooled employer plans (PEPs) and provide more attractive benefits to workers and potential hires. Because PEPs are relatively new, small employers may be unaware of PEPs, or may not understand the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) standards applicable to them. The Department hopes to address challenges such as these which may impede small employers from taking advantage of PEPs. In addition to promoting retirement savings and reducing participant costs, expanding the use of PEPs is aligned with the Department's broader economic goals, including improving job quality and increasing labor force participation, especially at small businesses. Section II of this document provides a general description of the ERISA framework applicable to PEPs. Section III contains limited observations of the PEP marketplace made by the Department based on reports filed with the agency. Section IV provides limited interpretive guidance to help small employers understand their responsibilities as fiduciaries in connection with joining a PEP. Section V includes a set of “tips” to assist small employers in selecting a PEP. Section VI solicits information about prevailing PEP practices, responses to which will be considered as a possible basis for a regulatory safe harbor that encourages market participants to offer and employers to join such plans. Section VII seeks input on information to assist the Department in developing the report to Congress required by section 344 of SECURE 2.0.
Under ERISA, an employee benefit plan (whether a pension plan or a welfare plan) must be sponsored by an employer, by an employee organization, or by both. Section 3(5) of ERISA defines the term “employer” for this purpose as “any person acting directly as an employer, or indirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan, and includes a group or association of employers acting for an employer in such capacity.”
By regulation, 29 CFR 2510.3-55, the Department of Labor (Department) has interpreted the definitional provisions of ERISA to permit a multiple employer plan (MEP) to be established or maintained by a bona fide group or association of employers or by a bona fide professional employer organization. Although that regulation clarified and expanded the types of arrangements that can be treated as MEPs under Title I of ERISA, it does not extend to so-called “open MEPs.” The term “open MEP” generally refers to a single defined contribution retirement plan that covers employees of multiple unrelated employers.
The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) removed possible legal barriers to the broader use of multiple employer plans by authorizing a new type of ERISA-covered defined contribution retirement plan—a “pooled employer plan” operated by a “pooled plan provider.”
Under section 3(2) of ERISA, which defines the term “pension plan” generally,
Section 3(43)(B) of ERISA specifically provides that the terms of the pooled employer plan must contain certain requirements. For instance, the plan terms must designate a “pooled plan provider” and provide that the pooled plan provider is a named fiduciary of the plan. The terms of the plan also must designate a named fiduciary (other than an employer in the plan) to be responsible for collecting contributions to the plan and require such fiduciary to implement written contribution collection procedures that are reasonable, diligent, and systematic.
Section 3(43)(B)(iii)(I) of ERISA provides that the terms of the plan must provide that each employer in the plan retains fiduciary responsibility for the selection and monitoring, in accordance with ERISA fiduciary requirements, of the person designated as the pooled plan provider and any other person who is designated as a named fiduciary of the plan. Subparagraph (II) of this section also provides that each employer in the plan retains fiduciary responsibility for the investment and management of the portion of the plan's assets attributable to the employees of that employer (or beneficiaries of such employees) in the plan to the extent not delegated to another fiduciary by the pooled plan provider and subject to the ERISA rules relating to self-directed investments.
Section 3(43)(B)(iv) of ERISA states that the terms of the plan must provide that employers in the plan, and participants and beneficiaries, are not subject to unreasonable restrictions, fees, or penalties with regard to ceasing participation, receipt of distributions, or otherwise transferring assets of the plan in accordance with applicable rules for plan mergers and transfers.
Section 3(43)(B)(v) of ERISA provides that the terms of the plan must require the pooled plan provider to provide to employers in the plan any disclosures or other information that the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) may require, including any disclosures or other information to facilitate the selection or monitoring of the pooled plan provider by employers in the plan. This section also requires each employer in the plan to take any actions that the Secretary or pooled plan provider determines are necessary to administer the plan or to allow for the plan to meet the ERISA and Code requirements applicable to the plan, including providing any disclosures or other information that the Secretary may require or which the pooled plan provider otherwise determines are necessary to administer the plan or to allow the plan to meet such ERISA and Code requirements.
Section 3(43)(B)(vi) provides that any disclosure or other information required to be provided to participating employers may be provided in electronic form and must be designed to ensure that only reasonable costs are imposed on pooled plan providers and employers in the plan.
A pooled plan provider with respect to a pooled employer plan is defined in ERISA section 3(44) to mean a person that is designated by the terms of the plan as a named fiduciary under ERISA, as the plan administrator, and as the person responsible to perform all administrative duties (including conducting proper testing with respect to the plan and the employees of each employer in the plan) that are reasonably necessary to ensure that the plan meets the Code requirements for tax-favored treatment and the requirements of ERISA and to ensure that each employer in the plan takes such actions as the Secretary or the pooled plan provider determines necessary for the plan to meet Code and ERISA requirements. Such actions may include providing to the pooled plan provider any disclosures or other information that the Secretary may require or that the pooled plan provider otherwise determines are necessary to administer the plan or to allow the plan to meet Code and ERISA requirements.
Section 3(44) specifically provides that a pooled plan provider must acknowledge in writing its status as a named fiduciary under ERISA and as the plan administrator. In addition, this section also provides that the pooled plan provider is responsible for ensuring that all persons who handle plan assets or who are plan fiduciaries are bonded in accordance with ERISA requirements.
Section 3(44) also requires the pooled plan provider to register with the Secretary, and to provide to the Secretary such other information as the Secretary may require, before beginning operations as a pooled plan provider. In the Department's view, the primary purpose of the registration requirement is to provide the Department with sufficient information about persons acting as pooled plan providers to engage in effective monitoring and oversight of this new type of ERISA-covered retirement plan. In 2020, the Department published a final rule, titled Registration Requirements for Pooled Plan Providers, to enable pooled plan providers to register with the Department.
To meet the registration requirements set forth by section 3(44), pooled plan providers must file a Form PR prior to beginning operations, as well as upon other events, such as when new PEPs are added or terminated, to amend or correct previously submitted registration information, or to signal that the pooled plan provider is ceasing operations.
Though the Form PR data provides important information about the universe of pooled plan providers, the Department relies on a combination of the Form PR and the Form 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan, submitted for each PEP to determine the number of PEPs, along with information about the participants and assets of those plans.
As reported through Form PR filings, 142 unique pooled plan providers remained registered with the Department as of the end of calendar year 2023. By matching Form 5500 data for the plan year ending in 2022 with data from the Form PR registrations, the Department has identified 190 PEPs in operation, which reported approximately 618,000 participants and nearly $5 billion in assets.
In advance of this RFI, the Department analyzed 2023 Form 5500 filings because these reports were the first to require new information about the number of participating employers in a PEP. While the 2023 Form 5500 data may not be fully complete, it does include all PEPs that filed a 2022 Form 5500 and reported more than $100 million in assets and offers a reasonable dataset to assess the nascent PEPs marketplace.
The PEPs market was highly concentrated according to the 2023 filings. The 12 largest PEPs identified by assets under management held nearly 70% of all PEP assets and the 4 largest PEPs held more than 40% of all PEP assets.
Many of these PEPs appeared to be delivering on Congressional intent by offering diversified investment lineups at a lower cost than small plans could likely negotiate on their own behalf. For example, Morningstar finds that the median total cost for each participant in a small retirement plan is 84 basis points, accounting for likely investment expenses and other administrative costs charged directly to participants. In contrast, based on the same data source, the Department estimates that the total costs to participate and invest through one of the three largest PEPs reviewed were between 23 and 42 basis points for a typical participant in 2023.
In fact, some of these 12 PEPs have gathered enough assets to access investment types that would typically be inaccessible to small plans, such as collective investment trusts (CITs) and separately managed accounts. These CITs are almost always cheaper than similar, or even identical strategies, offered as registered open-end mutual funds.
Most—although not all—of the 12 PEPs we examined offered limited investment lineups that appear to be designed to be accepted in their entirety by participating employers. These lineups generally covered major asset classes without overwhelming participants by offering overlapping or arcane designated investment alternatives. (These limited lineups could also help PEPs gather enough assets in specific pooled investment strategies to gain the scale necessary to lower costs for participants.) The median number of funds offered by these PEPs was 17 designated investment alternatives, not including target-date funds (TDFs).
All but one of the largest PEPs offered TDFs, and collectively participants invested the majority of their assets in these vehicles. Fifty-eight percent of assets among the largest PEPs were invested in TDFs. TDFs can be a simple way for plan participants to reasonably manage the asset allocation of their investment portfolio. The 12 largest PEPs hold a greater proportion of assets in TDFs than is true of the plan universe more generally. EBSA estimates that about 30% of 401(k) plan assets are held in TDFs as of 2023. Some of this difference may be due to the fact that some legacy plans did not offer TDFs or automatic enrollment in the past. Nonetheless, those PEPs that the Department reviewed appear to be successfully channeling participants into simple, low-fee TDFs, which can help participants who do not wish to set their asset allocation mix themselves and do not use a managed account or other advisory service.
About half of the 12 largest PEPs that the Department reviewed seemed to avoid investments offered by parties in interest (sometimes referred to as “conflicted investments”). Seven of the 12 largest PEPs entirely avoided party-in-interest investment strategies (
Section 3(43)(B) of ERISA sets forth certain requirements for plan terms relating to pooled employer plan investments. This section, in relevant part, provides that the terms of the PEP must provide that each employer participating in the plan “retains fiduciary responsibility for the investment and management of the portion of the plan's assets attributable to the employees of the employer (or beneficiaries of the employees).”
However, section 3(43)(B)(iii)(II) of ERISA explicitly provides that the terms of the PEP may grant the pooled plan provider, as a named fiduciary, the authority to delegate the investment and management functions “to another fiduciary.” The statute thus allows the pooled plan provider to transfer the investment and management functions and obligations of participating employers to another fiduciary. In such circumstances, the pooled plan provider, as a named fiduciary, is subject to and must ensure compliance with sections 402, 403, 404, 405, and 406 of ERISA to effect such a transfer. Among other things, this means that the pooled plan provider must prudently select the fiduciary who will be performing the investment and management functions, and the pooled plan provider also must monitor that selection at reasonable intervals, in such manner as may be reasonably expected to ensure that the appointment comports with the terms of the plan and statutory standards.
If a pooled plan provider, as named fiduciary, were to appoint an investment manager as defined in section 3(38) of ERISA, the manager would be responsible for the prudent investment and management of the plan's assets—not the participating employers. Further, in such circumstances, neither the participating employers nor the pooled plan provider would be liable for any acts or omissions of the investment manager, except for any potential co-fiduciary liability under section 405(a) of ERISA. In the Department's view, the risk to participating employers of fiduciary liability could be minimized greatly if the pooled plan provider, as named fiduciary, expressly assumed full responsibility for, and exercised sole discretion and judgment in selecting and retaining the manager and did not attempt to reduce its responsibility by relying on authorization or ratification from the participating employers for the selection and retention, such as through an adhesive participation agreement. In these circumstances, fiduciary liability of participating employers would be minimized because the pooled plan provider assumed full responsibility for selecting and retaining the investment manager. This means the pooled plan provider has the duty to directly monitor the investment manager. Participating employers, in turn, must prudently monitor the pooled plan provider.
Pending additional guidance, the Department has prepared the following tips to assist small business owners in picking a PEP.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
In this Section VI, the Department solicits responses to questions primarily for the purpose of considering whether additional guidance to facilitate small employers joining PEPs would be helpful.
Shortly after the SECURE Act introduced PEPs, the Department began to examine PEP formations and operations. The point of the examination was to determine whether there is a need or demand for a new prohibited transaction class exemption or for amendments to existing prohibited transaction exemptions. The examination started on June 18, 2020, with the publication in the
Responses to the 2020 MEP RFI reflected a broad range of views and included no consensus. Some individuals stated that there were no potential conflicts of interest implicated by a pooled plan provider offering an investment in which it has a financial interest. Others, however, stated that such arrangements should be prohibited because they are inherently and unlawfully conflicted.
Notably, many individuals stated that the nascent PEP marketplace was not yet ready for a class exemption because the need for such relief depends on the structure of PEPs and structures were still maturing. Considering the varied and inconclusive responses to the 2020 MEP RFI, coupled with the increased number of PPPs since then as well as the further development and maturation of the PEP marketplace, the Department requests information based on the questions below.
1. The law does not limit the types of entities that may elect to serve as pooled plan providers. Which types of entities (for example, asset managers, third-party administrators, recordkeepers) are acting as pooled plan providers? Are these entities generally contracting out most administrative functions or performing these functions themselves?
2. How are PEPs marketed and distributed and by whom? Do marketing and distribution methods differ depending on the model? Do PEPs compensate third parties to advertise, distribute, promote, or otherwise supply access to and participation in PEPs? If yes, how is such compensation typically determined and from what source(s) is it paid?
3. Do vendors of pooled employer plans (including businesses that are themselves pooled plan providers but that are vending in a non-pooled-plan-provider capacity) also offer model single-employer plans or different PEP options? How do they determine which option to recommend to employers? To what extent and for what reasons do they offer customization and variations, such as different share classes, within the same PEP?
4. What barriers, if any, prevent small employers from becoming aware of, understanding, or trusting PEPs? Have employers with existing plans merged
5. In the context of corporate transactions, are there specific challenges for the retirement plans of acquiring businesses to accept acquired businesses' assets from PEPs (
6. Have professional employer organizations (PEOs) offered PEPs or do they offer only traditional multiple-employer plans? Are there any obstacles or barriers that would prevent a PEO from offering a fully integrated HR platform with a PEP retirement solution?
7. What percentage of pooled plan providers are using independent 3(38) investment managers pursuant to the delegation permitted by section 3(43)(B)(iii)(II) of ERISA? For this purpose, independent means not affiliated with the pooled plan provider. When 3(38) investment managers are used, are the agreements entered into between the 3(38) investment managers and the pooled plan providers, or do the 3(38) investment managers contract directly with the participating employers?
8. When independent 3(38) investment managers are used for investment and management of assets, how often do the managers provide services to the PEP or pooled plan provider other than investment management services, and what type of other services?
9. Do pooled plan providers purport to limit authority of their 3(38) investment managers to choose the funds or arrangements in which they invest? To what extent do pooled plan providers encourage or require investments from a limited menu of options? To what extent do pooled plan providers purport to limit the range of options to those in which the pooled plan providers have a financial interest?
10. Are PEPs offering investments with revenue sharing arrangements that offset the costs of recordkeeping or other plan services? Are PEPs offering investments that are proprietary to the pooled plan provider, its affiliates, or any other PEP service provider?
11. How do pooled plan providers manage potential conflicts of interest in cases in which they offer investments in which they have a financial interest?
12. Are there any potential conflicts of interest in PEP distribution models? If so, how are they managed?
13. What existing prohibited transaction exemptions (statutory or administrative) do pooled plan providers rely on, if any?
14. Based on the business models that pooled plan providers have developed, is there a need for additional prohibited transaction exemptions? If so, explain why they are needed, what conditions should be included, and why they would be in the interest of, and protective of, affected plans.
15. Should the Department codify a regulatory safe harbor based on the guidance and tips in Sections IV and V of this RFI, respectively, for small employers to satisfy their fiduciary responsibilities for selection and monitoring pooled plan providers and other named fiduciaries referenced in section 3(43)(B)(iii)(I) and their fiduciary responsibilities for the investment and management of the portion of the PEP's assets attributable to their employees referenced in section 3(43)(B)(iii)(II)? Why or why not? Are there additional considerations or conditions, apart from the guidance and tips in Sections IV and V, that the Department should consider with respect to the design or adoption of such a safe harbor?
16. Would the safe harbor referenced in question 15 encourage the growth of high-quality PEPs? Would such a safe harbor help pooled plan providers market PEPs to participating employers while simultaneously encouraging small businesses to join PEPs?
17. Should the safe harbor referenced in question 15 require the PEP to use a 3(38) investment manager that is not affiliated with the pooled plan provider?
18. What disclosures should be provided to participating employers as part of such a safe harbor? Have employers experienced difficulties in obtaining information about PEPs before joining and, if so, what types of information?
19. Should arrangements between an independent 3(38) investment manager and participating employers be permitted, encouraged, or discouraged as part of the safe harbor referenced in question 15—for instance, should the safe harbor encourage or discourage arrangements under which each participating employer in a PEP has a different investment menu for its own employees, or create special protective conditions for such arrangements? Should the safe harbor include conditions designed to ensure that the PPP gives all participating employers and plan participants the same investment options and fee structures on the same terms? Why or why not?
20. Should such a safe harbor exclude PEPs that offer investments in which the pooled plan provider has a financial interest?
21. Should such a safe harbor create any specific requirements regarding the offer of TDFs, the offer of managed accounts, the acceptable number of pooled investments offered as designated investment alternatives, or the asset class coverage of designated investment alternatives available to participating employers in a PEP?
22. Should such a safe harbor designate a permissible range of total fees for participants in the PEP? For this purpose, the safe harbor could define total fees as an average percent of assets.
23. Are there any issues specific to registered investment company funds or collective investment trusts that such a safe harbor should address? If so, what are they and why are they relevant for the safe harbor?
24. Should such a safe harbor require the use of written representations or certifications by the pooled plan provider about the PEP and the pooled plan provider's diligence in meeting the requirements of ERISA. Could any such written representations help participating employers satisfy their duty to prudently monitor the pooled plan provider, working similar to the way the written representations work in the fiduciary safe harbor in section 408(e) of ERISA (safe harbor for annuity selection)?
25. In addition to the safe harbor referenced in questions 15 through 24 for participating employers, do market participants see a need for a safe harbor for pooled plan providers themselves to encourage the formation of high-quality PEPs? If so, which service provider relationships (
Section 344 of SECURE 2.0 directed the Department, not later than five years after enactment, and every five years thereafter, to submit a report to Congress, and make publicly available on a website, the Department's findings from a study of the PEP industry, including recommendations on how PEPs can be improved, through legislation, to serve and protect retirement plan participants. On August 11, 2023, the Department issued a
26. What information can commenters provide on the range of investment options provided in PEPs, both in terms of the number and type of investments? The “range of investment options” means the specific investment options the responsible plan fiduciary has selected as “designated investment alternatives” under the PEP, without regard to the amount of assets invested in each. This excludes investments available through a brokerage window or similar arrangement.
27. What types of fees are assessed in PEPs and what is the range of the amount of such fees?
28. How do employers select a PEP? Do they tend to use third parties to assist in the selection process? How do employers monitor PEPs? Specifically, which aspects of PEPs are periodically reviewed? How often do employers conduct reviews of the PEPs they have joined?
29. What disclosures are provided to participants in PEPs? Are they generally the same disclosures that are required to be disclosed under ERISA to participants in other defined contribution plans? Responses to the August 2023 RFI stated that disclosures to PEP participants should not be any different than disclosures in other defined contribution plans. Do those responses represent the current view of the public?
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Proposed rule; correction.
On July 25, 2025 the U.S. Department of Education published an intent to establish negotiated rulemaking committees in the
The Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of a currently approved collection for the mandatory collection of summer meal site information from State agencies.
Written comments must be received on or before August 28, 2025.
Comments may be sent to: Edward Harper, Program Integrity and Innovation Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Edward Harper at 703-305-2340.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were 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 those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The FNS-905 form is among the requirements found in statute in Section 26 of the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 1769g), which mandates that FNS enter into a contract with a nongovernmental organization to develop and maintain a national information clearinghouse for grassroots organizations working on hunger, food, nutrition, and other agricultural issues, including food recovery, food assistance and self-help activities to aid individuals to become self-reliant, and other activities that empower low-income individuals. The FNS-905 form is specific to summer meal site data and populates the National Hunger Clearinghouse database with summer meals site information and locations. The USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse is a resource for the public to find information about the food safety net. Information collection activities associated with the USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse and its associated FNS-543 form, National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Form, are covered under OMB Control Number 0584-0474, which is approved through May 31, 2028. Submission of the FNS-905 is a regulatory requirement per 7 CFR 225.8(e) which states that “by June 30 . . . the State agency must submit to FNS a list of open site locations and their operational details and provide a minimum of two updates during the summer operational period.” The information from this form is used to populate the Summer Meals for Kids Site Finder map at
FNS provides information about approved meal sites for individuals to find meals for children 18 years and younger when school is out for the summer, and for groups that assist low-income individuals or communities to find meals for children. This information is a way to connect families to summer meals and assist communities in developing, coordinating, and evaluating strategic initiatives, partnerships, and outreach activities.
In December 2022, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328), authorizing a new, non-congregate meal service option in rural areas where no congregate meal service is available. Beginning in summer 2025, the Act also makes it mandatory for states to report summer site data once by June 30 and update that data at least twice each year, for a minimum total of three annual submissions. However, FNS expects State agencies to continue to submit the form approximately 11 times a year. The currently approved burden for this collection is 73 burden hours and 583 responses. The estimated number of respondents increases from 53 respondents to 54 to account for full State agency compliance of this requirement. Due to 54 State agencies now complying with this requirement, the total annual responses will increase from 583 to 594. In addition, FNS is increasing the estimated time to complete the requirement from 7.5 minutes (.125 hours) to 8 minutes (.1336 hours) to more accurately reflect the time that it takes to complete the template. These changes increase the burden hours from 73 hours to 79 hours due to the adjustment.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a new information collection for the contract of the project titled “Understanding Participant Experiences in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training (E&T).” The purpose of this collection is to help FNS develop a comprehensive understanding of how SNAP participants experience the SNAP E&T program and to identify actionable recommendations to help programs improve their customer service and efficiently connect participants with training and services that meet their needs.
Written comments must be received on or before September 29, 2025.
Comments may be mailed to Kristen Corey, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, 5th Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314 or submitted via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Michael Burke at 703-305-4369.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were 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 those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
We expect four States to participate in the project, including two States that operate mandatory SNAP E&T programs and two States that operate voluntary SNAP E&T programs. The project aims to (1) explore SNAP work registrants' understanding of work requirements when certifying or recertifying for SNAP eligibility; (2) describe SNAP work registrants' experiences with accessing SNAP E&T services and finding training opportunities that meet their needs; (3) assess the experiences of SNAP E&T participants; and (4) develop recommendations that States can use to support program participants in navigating work requirements and SNAP E&T.
To achieve the research objectives, the project will document and describe the
Among individuals participating in the photovoice and in-depth interviews, 15 will also be contacted again to participate in video interviews for the multimedia deliverable; of these, 10 will be respondents and 5 will be non-respondents.
Before the start of data collection in one non-study State, the study team will pretest all photovoice activities (including the consent form, the kickoff session, the photo submission form, and the interview discussion guide) with three SNAP E&T participants. We will also pretest the in-depth interview guide with eight SNAP E&T participants in two non-study States.
To begin recruiting participants, the study team will contact 24 State SNAP agency staff, which includes State program staff and State data systems staff; 14 will be respondents and 10 will be non-respondents. Four of the State data systems staff will provide administrative data which will be used to recruit SNAP E&T participants. The study team will contact 32 staff from not-for-profit and eight staff at for-profit organizations that serve as SNAP E&T providers to support the recruitment effort for the photovoice interviews and in-depth interviews. Among staff that provide E&T services participating in the recruitment effort, eight individuals will also be contacted again to participate in interviews for the multimedia deliverable.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Ozark-Ouachita 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 Ozark-St. Francis and Ouachita National Forests, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
An in-person meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Central Daylight Time.
All committee meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be at held at the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests Supervisor's Office, located at 605 West Main Street, Russellville, Arkansas. Committee information and meeting details can be found at the following website
Craig McBroome, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 479-964-7248 or email to
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss project proposals;
2. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects;
3. Approve meeting minutes;
4. Schedule the next meeting; and
5. Other.
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, 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.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice; revised.
On April 15, 2024, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (MLA), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Price Field Office, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (Forest Service) Manti-La Sal National Forest, published a Notice of Intent in the
The USDA plans that the EIS will publish before August 10, 2025, and that the USDA, NRE, Acting Under Secretary will sign the USDA Record of Decision by August 31, 2025.
Additional information about the proposal can be found on the following website:
Barbara Van Alstine, Forest Supervisor, Manti-La Sal National Forest, by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the hearing-impaired may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
The EIS will evaluate potential impacts of leasing and underground mining of Federal coal reserves contained in both lease tracts in accordance with the USDA interim final rule published at 7 CFR part 1b on July 3, 2025. A project decision by the Acting Under Secretary constitutes a final administrative determination of the USDA and this project shall not be subject to objections pursuant to 36 CFR 218.13(b).
As described in the April 15, 2024 Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS (73 FR 26184 [BLM_FRN_MO4500176455]), Canyon Fuel Company, LLC, submitted two coal lease applications to the BLM Price Field Office on June 10, 2019. One is an LBA for the Little Eccles Federal Coal Lease Tract of 120 acres in T. 14 S., R. 6 E., SLM, Emery County, Utah sec. 10: SE
Since settlement was reached in
Next, Section 5 of E.O. 14261, Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241, requires the Secretary of Agriculture to prioritize coal leasing and related activities, consistent with applicable law, as the primary land use for the public lands with coal resources identified in a report (described in section 4(a) of the E.O.) and expedite coal leasing in these areas, including by utilizing such emergency authorities as are available to them and identifying opportunities to provide for expedited environmental reviews, consistent with applicable law. The Skyline project is in the Uinta Region—Uinta Basin, Piceance Basin, as identified in the
Third, on July 3, 2025, the Department of Agriculture issued an interim final rule revising the departmental NEPA regulations at 7 CFR part 1b to provide necessary direction on the implementation of the NEPA in light of the NEPA amendments by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and the Council on Environmental Quality rescinding the 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 regulations (effective April 11, 2025). The Acting Under Secretary for NRE has identified processes outlined in the rescinded Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (36 CFR 220,
With the changed statutory and regulatory environment, the Acting Under Secretary for NRE is proposing preparation of an EIS for the Skyline project and will be the responsible official for the Record of Decision. The Acting Under Secretary for NRE intends to issue the environmental impact statement and record of decision under the NEPA regulations at 7 CFR 1b, Sections 1b.7 and 1b.8. This change will expedite coal leasing in the Uinta Region—Uinta Basin, Piceance Basin, in compliance with E.O. 14261, and accelerate the processing of pending coal lease applications as required by OBBB. The process is further expedited by eliminating the requirement for a pre-decisional objection process in accordance with 36 CFR 218, Section 218.13.
See April 15, 2024 Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS (73 FR 26184 [BLM_FRN_MO4500176455]) for information on these actions.
The issues and a summary of expected impacts for the action alternatives are as follows:
The reduction of water volume or water balance of water bodies from interception of faults during mining is unlikely. The small volume of dewatering discharge relative to the capacity of Electric Lake, as well as the natural sources of volume changes in Electric Lake, would make it unlikely that any increase in volume would be identifiable or measurable.
Approximately 9.6 to 7.5 acres of migratory bird habitat could experience subsidence-related tensile fractures within the subsidence area. A small number of individual plants along the fractures could experience mortality or reduced growth. A small number of trees may be become unstable and fall. No widespread reduction of foraging resources, cover, or water resources would occur. Nests could be destroyed if a tree falls that contains a nest, although the likelihood of this happening is low given that surface fractures would be localized and expected to affect a small portion (0.4 percent) of the wildlife analysis area.
Approximately 9.6 to 7.5 acres of big game crucial summer range could experience subsidence-related tensile fractures but no widespread reduction of foraging resources, cover, or water resources or decrease in habitat quality in the analysis area would occur. No reduction in herd numbers is expected.
The Forest Service, along with BLM, previously published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Skyline Mine Little Eccles Lease by Application project on April 15, 2024. The NOI outlined a schedule for the decision-making process; however, this was prior to the issuance of E.O. 14261 in January 2025, recission of the CEQ NEPA regulations in April 2025, and issuance of the USDA NEPA regulations interim final rule in July 2025, and enactment of new statutory authority in the OBBB in July 2025. To comply with the OBBB, it is anticipated that both the DOI and USDA will publish an EIS before August 10, 2025, and sign the Records of Decision by August 31, 2025.
The USDA's Forest Service, at the direction of USDA, NRE is the co-lead agency with the BLM. See April 15, 2024 Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS (73 FR 26184 [BLM_FRN_MO4500176455]) for information on other agencies.
The responsible official for the Department of Agriculture is the Acting Under Secretary for NRE. The scope of USDA's decision is limited to consenting to lease. See April 15, 2024 Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS (73 FR 26184 [BLM_FRN_MO4500176455]) for more information.
Under the Forest Service's previous NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220, a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was previously published in the
USDA is relying on the comments requested when the Forest Service published the initial NOI in April 2024. A copy of the Skyline Mine Little Eccles Lease and Flat Canyon Lease Modification Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report is located at:
Garmin International, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Olathe, Kansas within Subzone 17G. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 21, 2025.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: avionic products (electronic interference suppression surface-mounts; configuration modules and subassemblies; servo actuators and flight control systems; power system interface subassemblies; communication, navigation and flight control systems; GPS and communication systems; GPS and navigation systems; satellite communication transceivers and radios; display modules; satellite communication transceivers and receivers; radar altimeter subassemblies; radar systems; autopilot and flight control systems; engine indication systems; traffic advisory systems; audio panel subassemblies; communication and datalink systems; housing and mounting components kits; night vision and display systems; GPS navigation and communication kits; flight display subassemblies; resistors; system interfaces; system integration devices; control system subassemblies; transponders with GPS systems; wiring system subassemblies; servo mounts and adapters; altitude and air speed sensors); removable media (with pilot software; with GPS navigation map updates; with marine navigation software updates); assemblies (autopilot and flight control system; printed circuit board); smartwatches with global position systems, performance tracking, fitness tracking, and navigation features; radar altimeters; GPS antenna kits; automobile products (performance control modules; electric drive systems); and, marine products (autopilot system instrument kits; integrated smart pumps; reactor-based autopilot systems) (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.3%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: solder fluxes; silicone components (hoses; pads; radio-frequency (“RF”) absorber sheets; watch bands; foam cushions; watch straps); plastic components (barbed tube fittings; tapes; storage cases; bags; block shields; cable guard kits; cable ties; chafe blocks; clamps; cushions; fairleads; gaskets; hydrophobic patches; knob assemblies; O-rings; spacers; thermal pads; washers; wheel caps; wiring conduits; protective covers; protective cases); paper components (labels; envelopes; package sleeves; printed inserts); vinyl protective caps; polypropylene protective trays; nylon pins; assorted plastic hardware kits; rubber components (gaskets; O-rings; spacers; washers; insulators); polyurethane foam pads; assorted rubber hardware kits; paperboard boxes; synthetic fiber covered gaskets; synthetic microfiber cleaning cloths; zinc components (load cell arms; ratchet sockets); mount plates; assemblies (cable; printed circuit board; gear; electrical switch; housing; mechanical control rod; mount backplate; protective cover; drive plate; heated pitot; surface mount engine shield; hydraulic autopilot; mounting tray; pitot tube); steel components (wires; screws; washers; backshell
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of overhead door counterbalance torsion springs (overhead door springs) from producers and exporters from India.
Applicable July 29, 2025.
Zachary Shaykin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2638.
On October 29, 2024, Commerce received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of overhead door springs from India filed in proper form on behalf of the petitioners, IDC Group Inc., Iowa Spring Manufacturing, Inc., and Service Spring Corp (collectively, the petitioners).
Commerce selected Alcomex Springs Pvt Ltd. (Alcomex) as the sole individually-examined respondent in this investigation.
On June 24, 2025, the petitioners alleged that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of overhead door springs from India, pursuant to section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 531.206.
In accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), because the petitioners submitted the critical circumstances allegation more than 30 days before the scheduled date of the final determination,
The POI is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
The petitioners allege that there were a massive increase of imports of overhead door springs from India and provided monthly import data for the period of June 2024 through March 2025.
Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in a CVD investigation if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A) the alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement;
In determining whether there are “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h) and (i), Commerce normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (
In the
As explained in the
As stated above, Alcomex withdrew its participation from this investigation and,
To determine whether imports are massive within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.206(h) for all other exporters or producers, Commerce's normal practice is to subtract shipments reported by the cooperating mandatory respondents from the shipment data of subject merchandise. However, as stated above, there are no cooperative respondents under investigation. Therefore, for all other exporters and/or producers, we compared the monthly shipment data using import data from Trade Data Monitor (TDM) for a base and a comparison period. We determined to use the TDM data because the Panjiva data supplied by the petitioner did not report the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) codes for all entries reported.
When determining whether massive shipments occurred, Commerce's practice is to include the month the petition was filed in the base period if the petition was filed during the last half of the month.
We will make a final determination concerning critical circumstances in the final determination of this investigation, which is currently scheduled for October 15, 2025.
Case briefs or other written comments limited to Commerce's preliminary critical circumstances determination may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which this notice is published in the
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, for Alcomex, the non-responsive companies, and all other producers or exporters of overhead door springs from India, we intend to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of subject merchandise from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 3, 2025, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce intends to notify the ITC of this preliminary determination of critical circumstances.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 771(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of overhead door counterbalance torsion springs (overhead door springs) from India and certain imports from the People's Republic of China (China).
Applicable July 29, 2025.
Seth Brown (India), Office IX at (202) 482-0029 or Jacob Keller (China), Office I at (202) 482-4849; AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On November 25, 2024, Commerce initiated the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of overhead door springs from India and China.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1) and (c)(2)(ii), when a critical circumstances allegation is filed 30 days or more before the scheduled date of the final determination, but later than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, Commerce will make a preliminary finding whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exits and will issue a preliminary critical circumstances determination within 30 days after the allegation is filed.
Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce, upon receipt of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reasons of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1) provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” Commerce will normally examine: (i) the volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that, “{i}n general, unless the imports during the `relatively short period'. . . have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during an immediately preceding period of comparable duration, the Secretary will not consider the imports massive.” Section 351.206(i) of Commerce's regulations defines “relatively short period” generally as the period starting on the date the proceeding begins (
In their allegation, the petitioners stated that, based on the dumping margins calculated in the petition (
The petitioners also allege that there was a massive increase of imports of overhead door springs from India and provided monthly import data for the period June 2024 through March 2025.
In their allegation, the petitioners stated that based on the dumping margins calculated in the petition (
The petitioners also allege that there was a massive increase of imports of overhead door springs from China and provided monthly import data for the period June 2024 through March 2025.
Generally, when determining whether critical circumstances exist pursuant to the statutory criteria, Commerce examines record evidence, including: (1) the evidence presented in the petitioners' allegation; (2) import statistics released by the ITC; and (3) shipment information submitted to Commerce by the respondents selected for individual examination.
As discussed in the
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that Commerce may use an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available when a party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Further, section 776(b)(2) of the Act states that an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination from the investigation, a previous administrative review, or other information submitted on the record. Because we find that the respondents listed above did not cooperate to the best of their abilities in these investigations, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that adverse inferences are warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available regarding certain aspects of these preliminary determinations of critical circumstances. We detail our use of adverse inferences in selecting from among the facts otherwise available below.
In determining whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce generally considers current or previous antidumping duty (AD) orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders in any other country with regard to imports of subject merchandise.
In determining whether importers knew or should have known that exporters were selling subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, Commerce must rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made. Commerce
Commerce normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for EP sales and 15 percent or more for CEP sales to impute importer knowledge of sales at LTFV.
For the China investigation, we preliminarily applied the highest corroborated dumping margin alleged in the petition of 778.31 percent as the AFA rate for Xulong Spring, Tianjin Wangxia, and the China-wide entity. We further preliminarily applied the simple average of the petition margins of 734.33 percent as the separate rate for the following Chinese exporters: Chi Hardware Corporation Limited (Chi Hardware), Hangzhou Fuxing Spring Co., Ltd. (Fuxing), Hebei Meirui Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd. (Hebei Meirui), MFG Direct (Ningbo) Limited (Ningbo Direct), Ningbo Well Lift Door Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Well), Wuxi JiuPie Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Wuxi JiuPie), and Wuxi Kop Door Technology Co., Ltd (Wuxi KOP).
In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports, Commerce normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC.
In determining whether there have been “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h), Commerce normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (
As discussed above, we are applying AFA in reaching our findings for certain aspects of this preliminary determination of critical circumstances. Specifically, for Alcomex, Asha Spring, Balaji Springs, Modern Engineering, and Reliable Springs, because of these companies' noncooperation in this investigation, we do not have information regarding their import volumes. Therefore, as AFA, we preliminarily find that the companies listed above had massive imports of subject merchandise over a relatively short period, satisfying the criterion under section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h). Thus, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist regarding imports of overhead door springs from India shipped by Alcomex, Asha Spring, Balaji Springs, Modern Engineering, and Reliable Springs, pursuant to section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206.
To determine whether imports are massive within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.206(h) for all other exporters or producers, Commerce's normal practice is to subtract shipments reported by the cooperating mandatory respondents from the overall shipment data of subject merchandise. However, as stated above, there are no cooperative mandatory respondents in the India investigation. Therefore, for all other exporters and producers, we compared the monthly shipment data using import data from Trade Data Monitor (TDM) for the five months preceding and following the filing of the petition. Because the petition was filed on October 20, 2024, in order to determine whether there was a massive surge in imports, Commerce
Accordingly, consistent with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, Commerce preliminary determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of overhead door springs from India from all exporters and producers. For the underlying data and results of Commerce's analysis,
As discussed above, for China we are applying AFA to reach our findings for certain aspects of this preliminary determination of critical circumstances. Specifically, for Xulong Spring and Tianjin Wangxia, because of these companies' noncooperation in this investigation, we do not have information regarding their import volumes. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the respondents listed above had massive imports of subject merchandise over a relatively short period, satisfying the criterion under section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h). Thus, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist regarding imports of overhead door springs from China shipped by Xulong Spring, Tianjin Wangxia, and the China-wide entity, pursuant to section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206. To determine whether imports are massive within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.206(h) for all other exporters or producers, Commerce's normal practice is to subtract shipments reported by the cooperating mandatory respondents from the overall shipment data of subject merchandise. However, as stated above, there are no cooperative mandatory respondents under the China investigation. Therefore, for all other exporters and producers, we compared the monthly shipment data using import data from Trade Data Monitor (TDM) for the five months preceding and following the filing of the petition. Because the petition was filed on October 20, 2024, in order to determine whether there was a massive surge in imports, Commerce compared the total volume of shipments during the period June 2024 through October 2024 with the volumes of shipments during the period November 2024 through March 2025.
Accordingly, consistent with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, Commerce preliminary determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of overhead door springs from China from the China-wide entity but do not exist with regards to Chinese separate rate companies. For the underlying data and results of Commerce's analysis,
Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to all producers and/or exporters in India. Additionally, in China we preliminarily determine critical circumstances exist for the China-wide entity.
We will make final determinations concerning critical circumstances in the final determinations of the China and India LTFV investigations, which are currently scheduled for August 11, 2025, and October 15, 2025, respectively.
Written comments limited to these preliminary critical circumstances determinations may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than three days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than two days after the date for filing case briefs. All comments regarding these preliminary critical circumstances determinations are subject to the same request for public executive summaries in case and rebuttal briefs, as noted in the
Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of: (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered; or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for all imports of overhead door springs from India and China. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation ordered in the
In accordance with section 773(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of these preliminary determinations of critical circumstances.
These determinations are issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(iii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that producers and/or exporters subject to this administrative review sold subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
Applicable July 29, 2025.
Thomas Martin or Joshua Jacobson, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936 or (202) 482-0266, respectively.
Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by this review is certain softwood lumber products from Canada. For a full description of the scope,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. All requests for an administrative review of Smartlam LLC were timely withdrawn within 90 days of the publication of the initiation notice for this review.
Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the antidumping duty (AD) assessment rate calculated for the review period.
All issues raised in the case briefs filed in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included in Appendix I of this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we rescinded this review with regard to 53 companies, as we stated was our intent in a memorandum.
Generally, when calculating margins for non-selected respondents, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which provides instructions for calculating the all-
In this review, we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 35.53 percent for Canfor and 9.65 percent for West Fraser. In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, Commerce calculated the weighted-average, based on the mandatory respondents' publicly ranged sales data, of the mandatory respondents' calculated weighted-average dumping margins and assigned this rate to the non-selected companies in these final results.
As a result of this administrative review, we are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margins to the manufacturers/exporters listed below for the POR, January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
We calculated importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for each importer's (or customer's) examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer- (or customer-) specific rate is zero or
Commerce's “reseller policy” will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (
For all non-selected companies listed in Appendix II, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR at the average of the rates calculated for Canfor and West Fraser as listed above.
For the companies/entities listed in Appendix III, for which we are rescinding this administrative review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(ii).
The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise under review and for future cash deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed above in the “Final Results of Review” section; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previously completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the final results for the most recent period in which that producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the final results for the most recent period in which that producer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or in any previously completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will continue to be 6.04 percent
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Spiny Dogfish Advisory Panel will hold two public meetings.
The meetings will be held on Wednesday, August 20, 2025, one from 2:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m. and another from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar. Connection information will be posted to the Council's calendar prior to the meeting at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Spiny Dogfish Advisory Panel (AP) will meet twice via webinar on Wednesday, August 20, 2025, once from 2:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. and again from 5 p.m. until 7 p.m. The AP is meeting twice to maximize participation. The purpose of this meeting is for the AP to provide advice regarding the framework adjustment action to modify spiny dogfish fishery accountability measures, including catch overage paybacks. More information on this action is available at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD (P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 29, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Human Resources Activity, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 08F05, Alexandria, VA 22350, LaTarsha Yeargins, 571-372-2089.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 29, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), Research, Accountability & Evaluation Division, ATTN: Research Requests, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400, or James Revell, DoDEA Research, Accountability & Evaluation Division at Tel: (571) 372-1891.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 28, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 29, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation, 2231 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, ATTN: Mr. Patrick O'Brien or call 703-697-2123.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 29, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Human Resources Activity, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 08F05, Alexandria, VA 22350, LaTarsha Yeargins, 571-372-2089.
Section 572 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 required commanders of each military command to conduct a climate assessment of the command or unit for purposes of preventing and responding to sexual assaults. A subsequent November 2015 memo from the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) designated the DEOCS as the survey tool to support the NDAA requirement for a DoD command climate assessment program. As outlined in DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6400.11, all active duty and Reserve component commanders and DoD civilian organization leaders are required to administer a DEOCS to their unit or organization annually. Also included in the DEOCS population are active duty and Reserve component members of the Coast Guard, students at the U.S. Military Service Academies, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, and U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, and foreign nationals working for the DoD. The survey is web-based and is a census of the commander's unit. The core survey questions are organized into three main categories that include (1) unit experience, (2) leadership, and (3) behaviors and personal experience. In addition to the core content, the data collection includes items measuring readiness detracting behaviors experienced by Active-Duty members, Reserve members, and DoD civilian employees to meet Department requirements to assess other forms of harassment and discrimination in response to the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military (IRC-SAM) recommendation.
Unit commanders and organizational leaders must administer a DEOCS during the Annual Force-wide administration. There is not a standardized method for defining at which level in the hierarchy units are required to take the DEOCS, how to define a unit, or how to define unit membership. As a result, there may be overlap between DEOCS units resulting in individuals taking more than one DEOCS. The additional survey items included on the DEOCS to meet the requirement to gather information on racial and ethnic issues among active duty and Reserve component members is collected biennially (
United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 29, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Surface Deployment Distribution Command (SDDC), 1 Soldier Way, Scott AFB, IL 62225, Sherry Verdu/Estella McNaughton, 618-220-5323.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD(HA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 29, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, 1200 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, Ms. Kimberly Lahm,
This study will highlight areas related to family planning that may threaten DoDs ability to field a ready and lethal force. It will also point to areas where DoD may need to augment or develop care, programs, services, or policies that provide needed reproductive health care and family planning services to the force in order to maintain and enhance health, readiness, retention, and lethality.
The purpose of the data collection effort is to better understand service members experiences with family planning services provided by both DoD and community providers. Respondents include approximately 4,800 active duty service members from all service branches (below the rank of flag officer) at 24 CONUS installations. Data will be
Dedicated notetakers will take verbatim notes during each focus group and discussion. These notes will be immediately cleaned to remove any identifying information (
A six-item post-focus group survey will also be given to participants. The purpose is to collect sociodemographic and military characteristics that will be used to understand the representativeness of participants compared to the larger active-duty force. The survey will be paper-and-pencil and is anonymous. It should take no more than two minutes to complete. Data from the survey will be hand-entered into Excel and analyzed using the same software.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 29, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Manpower Data Center, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350, Derrick Thomas, 571-256-7241.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 29, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Headquarters Marine Corps Records, Reports, Directives, and Forms Management Section, 3000 Marine Corps, Pentagon Rm. 2B253, Mr. Mark Kazzi, (571) 256-8883.
The contractor will collect information from NMMC visitors via a Customer Experience Study survey as they exit the museum. Data collectors will invite visitors to participate in the approximately 10-minute, anonymous survey, emphasizing that participation is voluntary and appreciated. Visitors will be informed of their right to withdraw at any time and that there are no direct benefits or risks associated with participation. Those agreeing to participate will be asked to scan a QR code with their smartphone or data collector's smartphone to access the online version of the survey. Paper surveys will also be provided upon request. Data collectors will retrieve the paper responses and enter them verbatim into a survey tool. Any physical copies of the survey will be returned to the contractor until the end of the project when they will be shredded. Online survey data, collected via QR code, will be automatically stored in a secure survey tool. An In-depth Gallery Study will also be conducted in which data collectors will unobtrusively observe museum visitors who are viewing exhibits in select NMMC galleries. Using gallery maps, data collectors will track visitor(s) movements and complete an observation rubric. Per 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3), the observational phase of the study is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The study will provide the museum with valuable insights into its programs and services, informing improvements to the visitor experience and enabling the museum to better serve its diverse audience. Additionally, the data will help the museum identify areas for improvement in the design and accessibility of its galleries, ultimately enhancing the overall visitor experience.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an emergency review of a revision of an approved information collection request (ICR).
The Department is requesting emergency processing and OMB approval for a revision of this information collection no later than August 3, 2025. The Department is revising the collection to incorporate updates which align with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) which was signed into law on July 4, 2025. The Department will request public comments as part of a full clearance process following the emergency approval of this collection.
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, (202) 453-5967.
The determination of need and eligibility are for the following Title IV, HEA, federal student financial assistance programs: the Federal Pell Grant Program; the Campus-Based programs (Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) and Federal Work-Study (FWS)); the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program; the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant; and the Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), an office of the U.S. Department of Education (the Department), subsequently developed an application process to collect and process the data necessary to determine a student's eligibility to receive Title IV, HEA program assistance. The application process involves an applicant's submission of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). After submission and processing of the FAFSA form, an applicant receives a FAFSA Submission Summary, which is a summary of the processed data they submitted on the FAFSA form. The applicant reviews the summary, and, if necessary, will make corrections or updates to their
In addition to the calculation of financial need for the various Title IV programs, the FAFSA form also collects data that allows for a determination of an applicant's eligibility for state and institutional financial aid programs. If these data elements are not collected, the Department and institutions of higher education will be unable to make determinations of financial need and award any Title IV, HEA program assistance, as mandated by the HEA. Many states would also be greatly hindered in their calculation of state aid to applicants.
The FAFSA form is scheduled to be launched by October 1, 2025, for the 2026-2027 award year. Without emergency review of an updated FAFSA form, beta testing and the launch of the FAFSA would be delayed. This means that students would not be able to complete a FAFSA form to determine eligibility for federal student aid. Institutions of higher education would not be able to package aid for their students until their students' FAFSA forms have been processed. These delays would cause the FAFSA form to not be available to the public on time. Applicants and schools rely on the on-time launch of the FAFSA form each year. Delays could impact institutional enrollment projections, student enrollment, and student decisions to apply for federal student aid.
Election Assistance Commission.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission published a document in the
Paul Aumayr, 202-476-9051, or email,
In the
Paul Aumayr, Senior Election Technology Specialist, Testing and Certification Program, Washington DC, 202-476-9051. All requests and submissions should be identified by the title of the information collection.
Department of Energy.
Notice of request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 29, 2025. If you anticipate any difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in the
Written comments may be sent to Adam Guzzo, Program Manager, Office of State and Community Energy Programs, at 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585 or by email at
Adam Guzzo, Program Manager, Office of State and Community Energy Programs; 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 258-6766;
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 25, 2025, by Eric Mahroum, Director of the Office of State and Community Energy Programs,
On January 29, 2025, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (licensee), filed an application pursuant to Article 409 of the project license, requesting Commission approval to grant Pickens Regional Joint Water System an easement to construct, operate, and maintain a raw water intake facility on Lake Keowee. The project is located on the Toxaway, Keowee, and Little Rivers in Transylvania County, North Carolina, and Oconee and Pickens counties, South Carolina.
The licensee proposes to grant Pickens Regional Joint Water System a 0.37 acre easement on Lake Keowee, to construct, operate, and maintain a raw water intake facility with a gross maximum instantaneous water withdrawal rate of 16.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and a gross maximum average annual withdrawal rate of 12 MGD. Proposed construction within the project boundary includes screened intake pipes, shoreline stabilization, and a floating dock. The Commission issued a notice of application for filing, soliciting comments, motions to intervene, and protests for this easement request on April 30, 2025. The public comment period closed on May 30, 2025.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members, and others to access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Robert Ballantine at (202) 502-6389 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organization, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organization, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on June 30, 2025, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5) of the Federal
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest these filings must do so in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments, protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
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
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 29, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The following are the information collection requirements in connection with the amended provisions of Appendix B of Part 1 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR Pt.1, App. B):
• Stipulation VII.C of the amended Collocation Agreement provides that proposals to mount a small antenna on a traffic control structure (
The First Amendment to the Collocation Agreement established new exclusions from the Section 106 review process for physically small deployments like DAS and small cells, fulfilling a directive in the Commission's
Facilitating these deployments thus directly advances deployment of 5G service in communities across the country.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-454), Chairman Brendan Carr has appointed the following executives to the Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB):
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”) is providing guidance on the factors it will consider when deciding whether to refer alleged violations of criminal regulatory offenses to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for prosecution.
Michelle Grajales (202) 326-3172, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20024.
Executive Order 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization of Federal Regulations, directed each agency to “publish guidance in the
The Commission has promulgated a small number of regulations, such as the Wool, Fur, and Textile Rules, where the authorizing statute provides for a criminal penalty in certain circumstances.
In the future, the Commission will consider several factors when deciding whether to refer an alleged violation of a regulation to DOJ for criminal prosecution, including:
(a) the harm or risk of harm, pecuniary or otherwise, caused by the alleged offense;
(b) the potential gain to the putative defendant that could result from the alleged offense;
(c) whether the putative defendant held specialized knowledge, expertise, or was licensed in an industry related to the rule or regulation at issue; and
(d) 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.
The Office of Management and Budget has not designated this action a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
Because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866, it is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 14192. 90 FR 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
By direction of the Commission.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is requesting a 3-year extension of the Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D; Federally Approved Forms (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #0970-0085, expiration February 28, 2026). There are no changes requested to these forms.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
Annual burden estimates have been updated to reflect a decrease in the nationwide child support case load since the most recent full OMB review and approval process in 2023. Therefore, the annual number of responses per respondent has decreased, resulting in an overall decrease in estimated annual burden. The number of respondents and estimated time per response has not changed.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
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,
The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 28, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports implementation of statutory requirements as discussed in Agency guidance. Section 524 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360n) is designed to encourage development of new drug or biological products for prevention and treatment of certain tropical diseases affecting millions of people throughout the world and makes provisions for awarding priority review vouchers for future applications to sponsors of tropical disease products. Section 524 of the FD&C Act serves to stimulate new drug development for drugs to treat a “tropical disease” (as defined in section 524(a)(3)) by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval for pharmaceutical treatments for these diseases. As defined in section 524(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, a sponsor of a “tropical disease product application” may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for any other application submitted under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262).
Accordingly, we developed the procedural guidance document entitled, “Tropical Disease Priority Review Vouchers” (October 2016), (available at
In the
We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:
Based on our evaluation of the information collection since the last OMB review and approval, the burden estimate decreased based on receipt of fewer vouchers and other information collection activities. Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall decrease of 46 hours and a decrease of 8 responses.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the revocation of the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) (the Authorizations) issued to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Regeneron) for REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab administered together), to GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) for sotrovimab, to Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) for bebtelovimab, and to AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (AstraZeneca) for EVUSHELD (tixagevimab co-packaged with cilgavimab). FDA revoked these Authorizations on December 13, 2024, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The revocations, including an explanation of the reasons for the revocations, are reprinted in this document.
The Authorizations are revoked as of December 13, 2024.
Submit written requests for a single copy of the revocations to the Office of Executive Programs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, 6th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a Fax number to which the revocations may be sent. See the
Andrea Gormley, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., 2nd Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2210 (this is not a toll free number).
Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain situations.
On November 21, 2020, FDA issued an Authorization to Regeneron for REGEN-COV (EUA 091), subject to the terms of the Authorization. Notice of the issuance of the Authorization was published in the
On May 26, 2021, FDA issued an Authorization to GSK for sotrovimab (EUA 100), subject to the terms of the Authorization. Notice of the issuance of the Authorization was published in the
On December 8, 2021, FDA issued an Authorization to AstraZeneca for EVUSHELD (EUA 104), subject to the terms of the Authorization. Notice of the issuance of the Authorization was published in the
On February 11, 2022, FDA issued an Authorization to Lilly for bebtelovimab (EUA 111), subject to the terms of the Authorization. Notice of the issuance of the Authorization was published in the
The authorization of a drug for emergency use under section 564 of the FD&C Act may, pursuant to section 564(g)(2) of the FD&C Act, be revoked when the criteria under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act for issuance of such authorization are no longer met (section 564(g)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act), or other circumstances make such revocation appropriate to protect the public health or safety (section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act).
In a request received by FDA on November 25, 2024, Regeneron requested revocation of, and on December 13, 2024, FDA revoked, the Authorization for REGEN-COV. Because Regeneron has informed FDA that all lots of REGEN-COV manufactured, labeled, and distributed for use under EUA 091 have expired, and that Regeneron does not intend to offer this product in the United States anymore, Regeneron requested FDA revoke the EUA for REGEN-COV. FDA has determined that it is appropriate to protect the public health or safety to revoke this Authorization.
In a request received by FDA on November 22, 2024, GSK requested revocation of, and on December 13, 2024, FDA revoked, the Authorization for sotrovimab. Because GSK has informed FDA that all lots of sotrovimab manufactured, labeled, and distributed for use under EUA 100 have expired, and that GSK does not intend to offer this product in the United States anymore, GSK requested FDA revoke the EUA for sotrovimab. FDA has determined that it is appropriate to protect the public health or safety to revoke this Authorization.
In a request received by FDA on November 21, 2024, AstraZeneca requested revocation of, and on December 13, 2024, FDA revoked, the Authorization for EVUSHELD. Because AstraZeneca has informed FDA that all lots of EVUSHELD manufactured, labeled, and distributed for use under EUA 104 have expired, and that AstraZeneca does not intend to offer this product in the United States anymore, AstraZeneca requested FDA revoke the EUA for EVUSHELD. FDA has determined that it is appropriate to protect the public health or safety to revoke this Authorization.
In a request received by FDA on December 5, 2024, Lilly requested revocation of, and on December 13, 2024, FDA revoked, the Authorization for bebtelovimab. Because Lilly has informed FDA that all lots of bebtelovimab manufactured, labeled, and distributed for use under EUA 111 have expired, and that Lilly does not intend to offer this product in the United States anymore, Lilly requested FDA revoke the EUA for bebtelovimab. FDA has determined that it is appropriate to protect the public health or safety to revoke this Authorization.
Having concluded that the criteria for revocation of the Authorizations under section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act are
An electronic version of this document and the full text of the Authorizations are available on the internet at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 28, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection helps to support Agency regulations and guidance. The statutory authority to collect this information is provided under sections 351 and 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262 and 264) and the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) that apply to drugs (21 U.S.C. 321
The PHS guideline also recommends that certain specimens and records be maintained for 50 years beyond the date of the xenotransplantation. These include: (1) records linking each xenotransplantation product recipient with relevant health records of the source animal, herd or colony, and the specific organ, tissue, or cell type included in or used in the manufacture of the product (3.2.7.1); (2) aliquots of serum samples from randomly selected animal and specific disease investigations (3.4.3.1); (3) source animal biological specimens designated for PHS use (3.7.1); animal health records (3.7.2), including necropsy results (3.6.4); and (4) recipients' biological specimens (4.1.2). The retention period is intended to assist health care practitioners and officials in surveillance and in tracking the source of an infection, disease, or illness that might emerge in the recipient, the source animal, or the animal herd or colony after a xenotransplantation.
The recommendation for maintaining records for 50 years is based on clinical experience with several human viruses that have presented problems in human to human transplantation and are therefore thought to share certain characteristics with viruses that may pose potential risks in xenotransplantation. These characteristics include long latency periods and the ability to establish persistent infections. Several also share the possibility of transmission among individuals through intimate contact with human body fluids. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Human T-lymphotropic virus are human retroviruses. Retroviruses contain ribonucleic acid that is reverse-transcribed into deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) using an enzyme provided by the virus and the human cell machinery. That viral DNA can then be integrated into the human cellular DNA. Both viruses establish persistent infections and have long latency periods before the onset of disease, 10 years and 40 to 60 years, respectively. The human hepatitis viruses are not retroviruses, but several share with HIV the characteristic that they can be transmitted through body fluids, can establish persistent infections, and have long latency periods,
In addition, the PHS guideline recommends that a record system be developed that allows easy, accurate, and rapid linkage of information among the specimen archive, the recipient's medical records, and the records of the source animal for 50 years. The development of such a record system is a one-time burden. Such a system is intended to cross-reference and locate relevant records of recipients, products, source animals, animal procurement centers, and significant nosocomial exposures.
Respondents to this collection of information are the sponsors of clinical studies of investigational xenotransplantation products under investigational new drug applications (INDs) and xenotransplantation product procurement centers, referred to as source animal facilities. There are an estimated five respondents who are sponsors of seven INDs that include protocols for xenotransplantation in humans and five clinical centers doing xenotransplantation procedures. Other respondents for this collection of information are an estimated two source animal facilities which provide source xenotransplantation product material to sponsors for use in human xenotransplantation procedures. These two source animal facilities keep medical records of the herds/colonies as well as the medical records of the individual source animal(s). There are an estimated three herds of approximately six animals per herd. The burden estimates are based on FDA's records of xenotransplantation-related INDs and estimates of time required to complete the various reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure tasks described in the PHS guideline.
We are therefore requesting an extension of OMB approval for the following reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure recommendations in the PHS guideline:
In the
Because of the potential risk for cross-species transmission of pathogenic persistent virus, the guideline recommends that health records be retained for 50 years. Since these records are medical records, the retention of such records for up to 50 years is not information subject to the PRA (5 CFR 1320.3(h)(5)). Also, because of the limited number of clinical studies with small patient populations, the number of records is expected to be insignificant at this time.
Information collections in this guideline not included in tables 1 through 6 can be found under existing regulations and approved under the OMB control numbers as follows: (1) “Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals,” 21 CFR 211.1 through 211.208, approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; (2) “Investigational New Drug Application,” 21 CFR 312.1 through 312.160, approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and (3) information included in a biologics license application, 21 CFR 601.2, approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. (Although it is possible that a xenotransplantation product may not be regulated as a biological product (
In table 7 of this document, FDA identifies those collection of information activities that are already encompassed by existing regulations or are consistent with voluntary standards which reflect industry's usual and customary business practice.
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 burden increase of 3.09 hours (new total of 62.12 hours) from our previous estimate of 59.03 hours. Change in the increase in burden was the result of the change of the number of recordkeepers due to the change in the number submission of IND's sponsors and a change in the number of animal source facilities.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 28, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection helps support recommendations discussed in FDA guidance. Animal drugs compounded from bulk drug substances by pharmacists and veterinarians do not meet certain important requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). To be legally marketed in accordance with animal drug approval requirements of the FD&C Act, an approval, conditional approval, or listing on the Index of Legally Marketed Unapproved New Animal Drugs for Minor Species
To assist respondents in understanding FDA's current thinking about animal drug compounding from bulk substances, our Center for Veterinary Medicine developed GFI #256 entitled “
In the
We base our estimate on our experience with the regulation of compounded animal drugs. 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) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 28, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6)) and § 101.93 (21 CFR 101.93) require that, no later than 30 days after the first marketing, we be notified by the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of a dietary supplement that it is marketing a dietary supplement product that bears on its label or in its labeling a statement provided for in section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act. In accordance with these requirements, submissions must include: (1) the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of the dietary supplement product; (2) the text of the statement that is being made; (3) the name of the dietary ingredient or supplement that is the subject of the statement; (4) the name of the dietary supplement (including the brand name); and (5) the signature of a responsible individual or the person who can certify the accuracy of the information presented, and who must certify that the information contained in the notice is complete and accurate, and that the notifying firm has substantiation that the statement is truthful and not misleading.
Our electronic form (Form FDA 3955) allows respondents to the information collection to electronically submit notifications to FDA via the Food Applications Regulatory Management (FARM) system. Firms that prefer to submit a paper notification in an alternative format may opt to do so; however, Form FDA 3955 prompts respondents to include certain data elements in their structure/function claim notification (SFCN), as described in § 101.93, in a standard electronic format and helps respondents organize their SFCN to include only the information needed for our review of the claim. Note that the SFCN, whether electronic or paper, is used for all claims made pursuant to section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act, including nutrient deficiency claims and general well-being claims in addition to structure/function claims. The electronic form, and any optional elements prepared as attachments to the form (
In the
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 made no adjustments to our burden estimate. This estimate is based on our experience with this information collection and the number of notifications received in the past 3 years, which has remained constant.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 28, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
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,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection helps support implementation of section 805 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 384a), which requires persons who import food into the United States to perform risk-based foreign supplier verification activities as set forth in part 1, subpart L (21 CFR part 1, subpart L) (Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Food Importers). The regulatory requirements are intended to verify that food imported into the United States is as safe as food produced and sold within the United States. Specifically, regulations in § 1.501 set forth the applicability of requirements for FSVP, while regulations in §§ 1.502 through 1.508, prescribe specific activities for developing, maintaining, and following an FSVP; as well as for evaluating compliance and for identifying and correcting hazards. Finally, regulations in § 1.509 identify required data elements applicable to food products offered for importation into the United States, while regulations in § 1.510 govern required records, providing that records be made available to FDA upon request and that records be maintained electronically.
The information collection covers activities attendant to statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to establishing and maintaining FSVP records, including recordkeeping pertaining to the hazard controls set forth in the regulations. We have also established and maintain a web page regarding the FSVP program at
The regulations also include requirements pertaining to reporting to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for subsequent transfer to FDA. The reporting requirements to CBP specify that the information must be provided electronically. The FSVP Importer Portal for FSVP Records Submission allows for importers to upload and submit records electronically, after receiving a written request from FDA. The portal may be found
Respondents to the information collection are persons who import food into the United States.
In the
FDA estimates 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 made no adjustments to the currently approved burden estimate. However, a miscalculation in the burden estimate was identified during a review of the prior renewal and has been corrected.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 28, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
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,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports FDA regulations. Sections 801 and 802 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 381 and 21 U.S.C. 382) charge the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through FDA, with the responsibility of helping to ensure that exports of unapproved new drugs, biologics, devices, animal drugs, food, cosmetics, and tobacco products that are not to be sold in the United States meet the requirements of the country to which the product is to be exported. The respondents to this information collection are exporters who have notified FDA of their intent to export unapproved products that may not be sold or offered for sale in domestic commerce in the United States as allowed under section 801(e) of the FD&C Act. In general, the notification identifies the product being exported (
Respondents to the information collection are exporters of products that may not be sold in the United States and are regulated by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH); Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM); and Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). Respondents to this collection of information maintain records
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
In table 1, we estimate the number of respondents increased for biologics from 4 to 5. The number of respondents increased for drugs from 3 to 5. However, this increase is offset by respondents for devices as the estimated number of exporters decreased from 22 to 16. The number of responses per respondent increased for biologics from 35 to 92 resulting in an increase in burden for biologics reporting from 2,100 to 6,900. Despite decreases in the number of responses per respondent for drugs and devices, the increase in biologics reporting resulted in an overall total reporting burden increase from 5,985 to 7,890.
In table 2, we separated each center's recordkeeping to ensure consistency with table 1 and to accurately capture each center's burden estimates. The average No. of Records Per Recordkeeper increased from 4.12 to 14.15 which represents a total recordkeeping burden increase from 39,094 to 47,608.
Based on a review of Agency data, our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase of 10,419 hours and a corresponding increase of 514 responses. In the previous extension request FDA included burden for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (now known as Human Foods Program (HFP)). However, upon reevaluation of these burden estimates, we have determined that the burden associated with HFP is already accounted for under OMB Control Number 0910-0793.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 28, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received,
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,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports FDA regulations, programs, forms, and guidance. Section 519 of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360i) (Records and Reports on Devices) requires user facilities, manufacturers, and importers of medical devices to report adverse events involving medical devices to FDA and requires that medical device manufacturers and importers submit medical device reports (MDRs) electronically. These provisions are codified at part 803 (21 CFR part 803)—Medical Device Reporting. The regulations also provide for recordkeeping requirements and certain exemptions and alternative reporting. Additionally, the regulations permit user facilities to submit paper-based annual reports, for which we have provided form FDA 3419 entitled, “Medical Device Reporting Annual User Facility Report.”
Respondents are required to report adverse events involving medical devices to the FDA. The information that is obtained from these reports will be used to evaluate risks associated with medical devices and enable FDA to take appropriate regulatory measures to protect the public health. Complete, accurate, and timely adverse event information is necessary for the identification of emerging device problems so the agency can protect the public health under section 519 of the FD&C Act. FDA makes the releasable information available to the public for downloading on its website (
In an effort at reducing burden, we have developed the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) Program for certain devices, which allows for respondent reporting of multiple malfunction events in a single report on a quarterly basis. The VMSR Program was established under section 519(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act. The associated FDA notification and order granting alternative entitled, “Medical Devices and Device-led Combination Products; Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program for Manufacturers” (83 FR 40973; 8/17/2018;
The final order “Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Serological Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Nucleic Acid Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests” (May 16, 2022; 87 FR 29661) established special controls for certain Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) serological diagnostic and supplemental tests (21 CFR 866.3956) and for HIV nucleic acid tests (NATs) diagnostic and supplemental tests (21 CFR 866.3957) to support their classification into class II, including submission of a log of all complaints annually for a period of 5 years following FDA clearance of a traditional premarket notification (510(k)) submission for these devices. (Information collections associated with premarket notification (510(k)) are approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.)
Earlier notification through the submission of the complaint log enables us to more promptly determine whether public health issues have been adequately addressed. The agency would not otherwise evaluate the kind of complaint information that would be included in the log until an FDA inspection, which typically occurs less frequently than annually. Implementing these specific reporting measures as part of the special controls for these devices is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for HIV diagnostic and supplemental tests subject to the reclassification order.
Provisions of part 4 subpart B (21 CFR part 4, subpart B), provide that when information regarding an event that involves a death or serious injury, or an adverse event, associated with the use of a combination product is received by the product sponsor, the information must be provided to the other constituent part applicant(s) no later than 5 calendar days after receipt. Part 4 also explains how and where to submit reports and provides for associated recordkeeping. These requirements are described in part 803.
Respondents are manufacturers and importers of medical devices and device user facilities. Device user facility means a hospital, ambulatory surgical facility, nursing home, outpatient diagnostic facility, or outpatient treatment facility as defined in § 803.3, which is not a physician's office (also defined in § 803.3). Respondents are also sponsors (manufacturers) of device-led combination products (see part 4, subpart B). Respondents also include manufacturers of HIV diagnostic and supplemental test devices.
Manufacturer and importer respondents submit reports electronically using FDA Form 3500A (approved under OMB control number 0910-0291) via either “eSubmitter” for low-volume reporters or Health Level Seven (HL7) Individual Case Study Report (ICSR) (HL7 ICSR) for high-volume reporters. User facilities reporting under §§ 803.30 and 803.32 have the option of electronic or paper-based reporting. User facility annual reporting under § 803.33 is paper-based, using form FDA 3419. Instructions for submitting the information are available in §§ 803.11, 803.12, and 803.20, and on FDA's public website at
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Upon review of this information collection, we updated the burden estimates based on internal data regarding MDRs received by FDA for fiscal year (FY) 2024. Device-led combination product reporting and disclosure under part 4, subpart B, are included in the burden estimates. Based on FY2024 data for “Manufacturer Reporting 803.50 through 803.53,” we estimate 1,871 respondents and 2,320,393 total annual responses.
The FDA notification and order granting alternative entitled, “Medical Devices and Device-led Combination Products; Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program for Manufacturers” grants an alternative under § 803.19 to permit manufacturer reporting of certain device malfunctions in summary form on a quarterly basis. The associated FDA guidance entitled “Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) Program for Manufacturers” (August 2024) is intended to help manufacturers better understand and use the VMSR Program. The Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) Program does not apply to reportable death or serious injury events, which are required to be reported to FDA within the mandatory 30-calendar day timeframe, under §§ 803.50 and 803.52, or within the 5-work day timeframe under § 803.53. Thus, if a manufacturer participating in the program becomes aware of information reasonably suggesting that a device it markets may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, then the manufacturer must submit an individual MDR for that event because it involves a reportable death or serious injury. We expect that a summary report will take approximately the same amount of time to prepare as an individual report.
Unlike manufacturers, device user facilities are not required to submit malfunction reports under part 803. User facilities, such as hospitals or nursing homes, are required to submit MDRs to FDA and/or the manufacturer only for reportable death or serious injury events. (See section 519(b) of the FD&C Act; 21 CFR 803.30(a).) We believe that by permitting alternative reporting for certain devices, the VMSR Program may reduce burden on respondents who elect to participate and are otherwise subject to mandatory requirements.
Special controls established in the final order “Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Serological Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Nucleic Acid Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests” to support the class II classification of certain HIV serological diagnostic and supplemental tests (21 CFR 866.3956) and for HIV NATs diagnostic and supplemental tests (21 CFR 866.3957) require the submission of a log of all complaints annually for a period of 5 years following FDA clearance of a traditional premarket notification (510(k)) submission for these devices. (Information collections associated with premarket notification (510(k)) are approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.) Although manufacturers of HIV serological diagnostic and supplemental tests and HIV NAT diagnostic and supplemental tests are already required to maintain complaint files and to review and evaluate complaints for these devices under 21 CFR 820.198, special controls are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of these devices. (Information collections associated with Quality System requirements under 21 CFR part 820 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.) We estimate it will take a manufacturer approximately 3 hours annually to review their existing records, prepare the complaint log, and submit to FDA.
We assume a cost of $10 associated with the payment of an annual fee to maintain e-certification will apply to each respondent. We estimate a total operating and maintenance cost of $18,710 ($10 × 1,871 respondents).
Since the last OMB approval, we have adjusted the respondent and response estimates based on FY 2024 data. We also adjusted the Average Burden per Response for “Exemptions—803.19” and “Importer Reporting, Death and Serious Injury—803.40 and 803.42” from 0.1 hour to 1 hour to correct an error introduced in a previous request for extension of this information collection. These adjustments have resulted in an overall increase of 1,527,443 total responses, and a corresponding increase of 323,806 total burden hours.
We are revising this information collection to add the FDA guidance entitled “Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) Program for Manufacturers” (August 2024;
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 28, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
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,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports Food and Drug Administration regulations. Tobacco products are generally governed by chapter IX of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (sections 900 through 920) (21 U.S.C. 387-387t). Specifically, section 919 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387s) governs tobacco user fees.
Section 919(a) requires FDA to “assess user fees on, and collect such fees from, each manufacturer and importer of tobacco products” subject to the tobacco product provisions of the FD&C Act. Accordingly, section 919(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387s (b)(2)(B)(i)) identifies those tobacco products as: cigarettes, cigars, snuff, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco.
FDA utilizes Form FDA 3852, entitled “Report of Tobacco Product Removals Subject to Tax for Tobacco Product User Fee Assessment”, to facilitate the collection of data necessary for calculating tobacco product user fee assessments. This form is used by domestic manufacturers and importers of tobacco products to report the quantity of products removed from manufacturing facilities or imported into the United States for sale.
To implement the tobacco user fee program as prescribed in the FD&C Act (as summarized above), FDA must collect the information needed to accurately calculate tobacco user fee assessments. On May 10, 2016, FDA published a final rule that requires domestic manufacturers and importers of the applicable tobacco products (listed above) to submit this information to the FDA (81 FR 28707).
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We have revised our burden estimates to this information collection request. 21 CFR 1150.5 is reflecting an increase in 120 respondents from 700 to 820. FDA requires the use of Form FDA 3852 to capture the monthly identification and removal information specified under § 1150.5(b)(1) and (b)(2). The form also directs manufacturers and importers to attach supporting documentation required by § 1150.5(b)(3). FDA considered the number of active Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) permits (based on TTB data) in FY23 for domestic manufacturers and importers of tobacco products subject to tobacco user fees.
Voluntary premium cigar data submission (monthly) is reflecting a reduction in 50 respondents from 100 to 50 and a reduction in average burden per response from 2.5 to 1.5 hours. FDA updated this data based on reasonable estimates of the burden of voluntary submissions in FY24. There may be some fluctuations in this number.
Section 1150.13 (21 CFR 1150.13) is reflecting a reduction in 57 respondents from 376 to 319. FDA considered the number of user fee assessments issued to domestic manufacturers and importers of tobacco products subject to tobacco user fees on average each quarter for FY23. Note, entities may have more than one TTB permit, however, tobacco user fee assessments are aggregated based on Employer Identification Number and not TTB permit number. Therefore, we expect the number of respondents to be lower for § 1150.13.
21 CFR 1150.15(a) is reflecting a reduction in 3 respondents from 5 to 2, and 21 CFR 1150.15(d) is reflecting a reduction in 2 respondents from 3 to 1 and a reduction in average burden per response from 10 to 5 hours. FDA considered the historical submission of tobacco user fee disputes and requests for additional Agency review.
The cumulative changes to the estimated burden for this information collection reflects an overall increase of 3,377 burden hours and a corresponding increase of 2,047 responses.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council, September 04, 2025, 01:00 p.m. to September 05, 2025, 01:05 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
The meeting time has been changed from 9:00 a.m. to 9:40 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The meeting is partially Closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIA.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications conducted by the National Institute On Aging, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is partially open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance to view the meeting, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below or use the Federal Relay, 1-800-877-8339, in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting website (
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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Sharon D. Beard, Director, Worker Training Program (WTP), Division of Extramural Research and Training (DERT), NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233 MD: K3-14, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 or call non-toll-free number 984-287-3237 or Email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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
OMB approval is requested for three years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 800.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council, September 09, 2025, 09:30 a.m. to September 10, 2025, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The FRN amended needed adjustment to reflect additional session for council. The meeting is partially closed to the public.
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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than September 29, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s)
Email.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than September 29, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0055 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177,
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
CBP Form 349,
CBP uses the information collected on CBP Forms 349 and 350 to verify that the fee collected is timely and accurately submitted. These forms are authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4461,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than September 29, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0142 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
CBP will continue to explore different and new technology that becomes available and can be incorporated into future regulation updates. The extension will continue to assist CBP in identifying future trade facilitation benefits. The goal of this pilot extension is to focus on improving the process and explore new technologies that will further streamline the process. The design of the pilot is not intended to estimate costs to participants or improvements to outcomes.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than September 29, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0NEW in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Email.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
As a requirement, outlined in FEMA's Manual (FM) 207-22-0001 and the Fiscal Year 2023 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), Daily Activity Reports (DAR) are used to submit the ongoing results and outputs from OPSG operations conducted. The information and statistics submitted to CBP included in the DAR will be delineated by OPSG subrecipients.
Subrecipients are approved county law enforcement agencies who receive the OPSG funding from their state governor's office to conduct OPSG duties. The DAR must be submitted to the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) sector or the participating agency's OPSG coordinator within 48 hours of the conclusion of each OPSG shift. Subrecipients and Sectors are responsible to ensure that DARs are submitted in the proper format and in a timely manner. DARs are submitted using the CBP Stonegarden Data Management System. Other local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies receiving funding through a subrecipient will submit DARs within 48 hours. Border Patrol Sectors and OPSG subrecipients will implement internal protocols to ensure operational data from subrecipients and DARs are properly collected following the established guidelines.
The information provided in the DAR includes but not limited to officers' names, government vehicle identification including license plates, and all information gathered while doing any vehicle stops. This information would include the name, vehicle description and license plate number of the person that was pulled over. Other information in the DARs includes any narcotic seizures that happened during their patrol while working Operation Stonegarden.
Historically, this collection of information was approved under FEMA's PRA control number 1660-0125, however, this collection has now been transferred to CBP ownership and in that process, CBP has reviewed the form and has made modifications to reduce the time burden. Having respondents submit their information directly to CBP through our electronic system, instead of the previous paper submissions, will reduce burden on the public and agency because it's easier to pre-fill the information. A new control number will be assigned after OMB approval.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than September 29, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0023 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Email.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under 19 U.S.C. 1500 and 1401a, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for appraising imported merchandise by ascertaining its value; classifying the merchandise under the tariff schedule; and assessing a rate and amount of duty to be paid. On occasions when the invoice or other documentation does not provide sufficient information for appraisement or classification, including for import compliance with trade agreements, preference treatment, or special provisions, CBP may request additional information using CBP Form 28,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than September 29, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0013 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
30-Day notice and request for comments; Information Collection Request, 1670-0028.
The OFFICE FOR BOMBING PREVENTION (OBP) within Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) will submit the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. CISA previously published this information collection request (ICR) in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 28, 2025. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. This is a reinstatement of an existing collection (1670-0028) with changes to the information collection.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Dennis Molloy, 202-604-3512,
TRIPwire (Technical Resource for Incident Prevention) is the Department of Homeland Security's online, collaborative information-sharing network for bomb technicians, first responders, military personnel, government officials, intelligence analysts, and select private sector security professionals to increase awareness of evolving improvised explosive device (IED) tactics, techniques, and procedures, as well as incident lessons learned and counter-IED preparedness information. Developed and maintained by OBP, the TRIPwire system combines expert analysis and reports with relevant documents, images, and videos gathered from publicly available sources to help users anticipate, identify, and prevent IED incidents.
Users from federal, state, local, and tribal government entities, as well as business and/or other for-profit industries, can register for TRIPwire access. The TRIPwire portal contains sensitive information related to the criminal use of explosives by threat actors, including violent, malicious organizations, which requires a limited, controlled means of dissemination—such as designations of “For Official Use Only,” “Law Enforcement Sensitive,” or “Controlled Unclassified Information.” Therefore, CISA must collect user information in order to verify an individual's eligibility to access the TRIPwire system.
In addition to new user registrations, CISA will also seek feedback from TRIPwire users via a questionnaire and will request that TRIPwire users revalidate their access status on an annual basis. All information collected/provided pursuant to this ICR will be done so on a strictly voluntary basis.
This collection of information is consistent with CISA's statutory authorities to provide assistance to federal and non-federal entities to enhance the security and resiliency of critical infrastructure, including the authority provided by 6 U.S.C. 652(c)(5), (11) and 6 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)(C). The previous
Office of the Secretary, Office of Financial Management, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Financial Management (we) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 28, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent to
Joshua Kamp, Office of Financial
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other 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.
The information will be gathered through the use of a form that collects information relevant to the acceptability of the proposed donation in conformance with the Department's donations policy. The form is completed and certified by the prospective donor then submitted to the Department or its bureau for review. Having donors certify their interactions with the Department gives the staff vetting the proposed donation basic information to be verified, resulting in a more efficient and timely donation review process.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of application.
The University of Alaska (UA) has filed an application for a recordable disclaimer of interest (RDI) application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands described in Mineral Survey No. 2407. The lands are also known as Silver Fox Mine. The lands were patented to UA on December 27, 1984, with a reversionary interest to the United States. UA seeks to remove the reversionary interest and a perceived cloud on title.
All comments to this section should be received on or before October 27, 2025.
You may provide comments on the RDI application or the BLM's “Silver Fox Mine Summary Report”, both located at
Bettie Shelby, Acting Branch Chief and Deputy Authorized Officer (AK-941), at
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services for contacting Ms. Wallace. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
UA, an instrumentality of the State of Alaska, filed an RDI application with the BLM on April 26, 2021, pursuant to 43 CFR part 1860, subpart 1864. The application pertains to the lands described in Mineral Survey No. 2407, officially filed on May 6, 1983, and patented to UA (patent number 50-85-0070) on December 27, 1984, with a reversionary interest to the United States. The legal land description is as follows:
That portion of Mineral Survey No. 2407, Alaska, situated in Sections 8 and 9, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Fairbanks Meridian, Alaska.
The area contains 59.59 acres.
UA contends there is a cloud on title due to discrepancies between stipulations in the Educational Mining Act of 1982, patent number 50-85-0070, and subsequent statutes. The discrepancies resulted in restrictions to UA's use of the described lands. The BLM agrees the discrepancies noted disregard the express direction of Congress to convey all right, title, and interest of the lands described to UA and limits UA's use of the land. If granted, the RDI application will remove the reversionary interest of the United States and the perceived cloud on the title.
An RDI is a legal document through which the BLM disclaims the United States' interest in or ownership of specified lands, but the disclaimer does not grant, convey, transfer, or renounce any title or interest in the lands, nor does it release any tax, judgment, or lien. This notice of application is to inform the public of the pending application and the UA's supporting evidence, as well as to provide the opportunity to comment or provide additional information to the BLM.
The BLM will not make a final decision on the merits of UA's application before October 27, 2025. During this 90-day period interested parties may comment on the university's application, AKFF-097727, and supporting evidence. In the same period interested parties may also comment on the BLM's “Silver Fox Mine Summary Report” available on the RDI website (see the
Copies of the university's application, supporting evidence, the BLM Summary Report, and comments (including names and street addresses of commenters) will be available for public review at the Alaska State Office, Public Room, 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513, during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excepting holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA) and Middle Tennessee State University, Department of Anthropology (MTSU) have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects from site 40RD299, Rutherford County, Tennessee 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Phillip R. Hodge, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA), 1216 Foster Avenue, Cole Building #3, Nashville, TN 37243, 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 TDEC-DOA and MTSU, 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, seven individuals have been identified. The associated funerary objects are two lots of unsorted pre-Contact artifacts.
Human remains of at least four individuals were recovered by the Rutherford County Sheriff during forensic investigations in 2004 or 2007 and donated to TDEC-DOA in 2010. The remains of at least one individual were collected by TEC-DOA staff from the backdirt of a looter pit during a site inspection in 2011. Remains of at least two individuals were recovered during site mitigation and testing by Middle Tennessee State University in 2014. Associated funerary objects recovered in 2014 include two lots of unsorted artifacts known to include lithics, charcoal, ochre, and faunal material including a partial dog burial. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition
The TDEC-DOA and MTSU have determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of seven individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The two lots of pre-contact artifacts 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 Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; 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 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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the TDEC-DOA and MTSU 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 TDEC-DOA and MTSU 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 Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base intends to carry out the disposition of human remains and cultural items removed from Federal land to the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (SYBCI) who has priority for disposition in this notice.
Disposition of the human remains and cultural items in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If no claim for disposition is received by July 29, 2026, the human remains and cultural items in this notice will become unclaimed human remains and cultural items.
Send written claims for disposition of the human remains and cultural items in this notice to Josh Smallwood, Vandenberg Space Force Base Cultural Resources, Installation Tribal Liaison Officer/Cultural Resources Manager, SLD 30 CES/CEIEA, 1028 Iceland Avenue, Building 11146, Vandenberg Space Force Base, CA 93437-6010, 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 Department of the Air Force, and additional information on the human remains and cultural items in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the identifications in this notice.
In support of mitigation activities carried out near Launch Facility-04 for the Sentinel Test Program, the Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base conducted data recovery excavations at archaeological site CA-SBA-512, the ethnohistoric Chumash village of
After consultation with the Tribe, consideration of tribal traditional knowledge regarding shell mound funerary practices, and further analysis of the collection, it has been determined that the artifacts from the other two test units and all 18 shovel test pits excavated in the shell mound should be considered unassociated funerary items under NAGPRA. These excavations contained fragments of bone hair pins, fishhooks, shell beads, steatite beads, obsidian and chert projectile points, and burned or broken milling implements which could be associated with burials at that location that have since disintegrated, were removed historically, or were not intersected by the recent excavations. Native American shell mounds found along the California coast such as this one are known for containing human burials, and while no human remains were found, artifacts suggestive of human interments are present in the shell mound. Based on the information available from two spatially separate test excavation units, human remains representing at least two individuals have been reasonably identified at the shell mound. A total of 1,063 associated funerary objects were identified in the two excavation units which had human remains, including flaked and ground stone tools, debitage, shell beads, pendants and fishhooks, ground and polished stone, and faunal remains. A total of 2,595 unassociated funerary objects were identified in the other two units and 18 shovel test pits, again including flaked and ground stone tools, debitage, shell beads, pendants and fishhooks, ground and polished stone, and faunal remains. No objects of cultural patrimony or sacred objects were identified.
The Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of at least two individuals of Native American ancestry encountered in the shell mound.
• The 1,063 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.
• The 2,595 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 Native American traditional knowledge. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families with cultural affiliation to the Chumash.
• The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California has priority for disposition of the human remains and cultural items described in this notice.
Written claims for disposition of the human remains and cultural items in this notice must be sent to the appropriate official identified in this notice under
1. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization 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 they have priority for disposition.
Disposition of the human remains and cultural items in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If competing claims for disposition are received, the Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base must determine the most appropriate claimant prior to disposition. Requests for joint disposition of the human remains and cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the lineal descendants, 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 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects from Franklin, Giles, Lawrence, and Williamson Counties, Tennessee 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Phillip R. Hodge, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA), 1216 Foster Avenue, Cole Building #3, Nashville, TN 37243, telephone (615) 626-2025, 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 TDEC-DOA, 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, 15 individuals have been identified. The 12 associated funerary objects are one partial ceramic vessel, four faunal remains, six lithic bifaces, and one lot of faunal material.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual. These ancestral remains were donated to TDEC-DOA in 2022 by faculty of Sewanee, The University of the South. No provenience data is known other than a notation that they are from the “Yeatman collection.” No additional information is available regarding the circumstances of collection or location of origin. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains representing, at least, four individuals. The four associated funerary objects are four faunal remains. These ancestral remains were donated to TDEC-DOA by faculty of East Carolina State University. No information is available regarding the collection or donation of these materials. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals. The seven associated funerary objects consist of six lithic bifaces and one lot of faunal material. These materials were seized in a raid by the City of Loretto police department and donated to TDEC-DOA in 2006. No other information is available regarding their original location or the circumstances of collection. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual. The one associated funerary object consists of a partial Mississippian period ceramic jar. These materials were excavated by a private consultant in 1998 or 1999, and seized by TDEC-DOA from a storage locker in December 2009. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual. No information is available regarding the acquisition of these remans. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains of at least one individual from the collection of the Tennessee State Museum were excavated by a private individual from a stone box grave in Brentwood, Tennessee and transferred to the TDEC-DOA in 1995.
Human remains of at least one individual were found in an estate collection and donated to TDEC-DOA. According to the donor, they were collected along the Harpeth River in Williamson County.
Human remains of at least two individuals were excavated by a private individual in the 1930s and donated to TDEC-DOA by the next of kin.
Human remains of at least two individuals were donated to TDEC-DOA with information on the box indicating that they were removed along the Harpeth River, in Williamson County, Tennessee. No record exists as to the timing, donor, or circumstances of acquisition. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
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 TDEC-DOA has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 15 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 Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; 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 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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the TDEC-DOA 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 TDEC-DOA 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 and Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) intend 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 August 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Alexandra Lucas, Government and Community Relations, Office of the Chancellor. 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 NBVC, 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 24 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. From 1909 to 1980, 24 unassociated funerary objects were removed from San Nicolas Island, California by several individuals and donated to the Lowie Museum of Anthropology (now known by Phoebe A Hearst Museum) at the University of California, Berkeley. The unassociated funerary objects are arrow straighteners and arrowheads, bone tools, drills, faunal remains, fishhooks, hairpins, harpoons, painting supplies, point fragments, stone cups, stone disks, stone pendants, stone pots, weights (two missing), whistles, worked shell, and worked stone.
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 and NBVC have determined that:
• The 24 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
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, California; Pala Band of Mission Indians; Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation, California; Pechanga Band of Indians (
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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Berkeley and NBVC 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 and NBVC 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 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects from Maury County, Tennessee 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Phillip R. Hodge, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, 1216 Foster Avenue, Cole Building #3, Nashville, TN 37243, 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 TDEC-DOA, 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, seven individuals have been identified. The two associated funerary objects are two lots of unsorted artifacts.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual. No information is available regarding the collection or donation of these materials. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains representing, at least, three individuals. These ancestral remains were excavated by a private consultant in 1999 under a cemetery termination order from the Maury County Chancery Court, and transferred to TDEC-DOA that same year. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains representing, at least, three individuals. The two associated funerary objects consist of two lots of unsorted artifacts including lithics and gastropod shell. These materials were donated to Division of Archaeology by the University of Tennessee-Knoxville Archaeological Research Laboratory in 2003. The original circumstances surrounding the collection of these materials is unknown.
There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
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 TDEC-DOA has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of seven individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The two lots of artifacts 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 Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; 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 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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the TDEC-DOA 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 TDEC-DOA 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 Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base intends to carry out the disposition of human remains and associated funerary objects removed from Federal land to the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If no claim for disposition is received by July 29, 2026, the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice will become unclaimed human remains and associated funerary objects.
Send written claims for disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Josh Smallwood, Vandenberg Space Force Base Cultural Resources, Installation Tribal Liaison Officer/Cultural Resources Manager, SLD 30 CES/CEIEA, 1028 Iceland Avenue, Building 11146, Vandenberg Space Force Base, CA 93437-6010 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 Department of the Air Force, and additional information on the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the identifications in this notice.
In October 2024, the Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections at University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) found a teaching collection that included NAGPRA items which had been kept in a locked storage at UCSB. The Repository transferred the items to Vandenberg Space Force Base on 31 January 2025. The collection contained human remains, a bone cast, and associated funerary objects from two different archaeological sites, CA-SBA-208 and CA-SBA-225. The collection also contained associated funerary objects from cemetery areas of three different archaeological sites, CA-SBA-210, CA-SBA-552, and CA-SBA-734. Based on the information available, human remains representing at least two individuals have been reasonably identified. The 16 associated funerary objects including projectile points, shell beads and ornaments, stone tools, and animal bones were also found.
The Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of at least two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 16 associated funerary 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.
• The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California has priority for disposition of the human remains and cultural items described in this notice.
Written claims for disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the appropriate official identified in this notice under
1. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization 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 they have priority for disposition.
Disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If competing claims for disposition are received, the Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base must determine the most appropriate claimant prior to disposition. Requests for joint disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the lineal descendants, 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 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA) intends to repatriate a certain cultural item from Lincoln County, Tennessee that meets the definition of an unassociated funerary object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Phillip R. Hodge, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, 1216 Foster Avenue, Cole Building #3, Nashville, TN 37243, 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 TDEC-DOA, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation.
Unassociated funerary objects consisting of one ceramic vessel. No information is available regarding the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of this artifact. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
The TDEC-DOA has determined that:
• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice is 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.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the TDEC-DOA must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The TDEC-DOA is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento has completed an inventory of 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Dr. Mark R. Wheeler, California State University, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Associated funerary objects have been identified that originate from CA-PLA-2777 in western Placer County, CA. The one lot of associated funerary objects are one lot of items that may include lithics, beads, shell, glass, metal, and uncatalogued material removed from a village and historic cemetery site. The associated funerary objects were collected by California State University, Sacramento students during a survey project and have been stored at the University under accession number 81-116. The University is unaware of any treatment of the associated funerary object with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that represent a potential hazard to the objects or to persons handling the objects.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The one lot of objects 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 objects described in
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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice 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 Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains (hereinafter referred to as “Ancestral remains” or “Ancestors”) and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Office Managing Director, University of Michigan, Office of Research, Suite G269, Lane Hall, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1274, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Michigan, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Ancestral remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. The 10 associated funerary objects are four lots of earthenware sherds, two lots of charred corn kernels, one lot of charred acorn fragments, two lots of animal bone fragments, and one lithic fragment. The Fisher site (11WI5) is located in Will County, IL, and excavated by multiple individuals on several different occasions. The Ancestors are of one cremated individual and one non-cremated individual. Dating for the site is unknown.
The University of Michigan has no record of, nor do its officials have any knowledge of, any treatment of items with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that represent a potential hazard to the collection(s) or to persons handling the collection(s).
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The University of Michigan has determined that:
• The Ancestral remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 10 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual Ancestral remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Fond du Lac Band and Mille Lacs Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Shawnee Tribe; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
Written requests for repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 28, 2025.
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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Zachary Garrett, 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 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.
Three associated funerary objects were removed from the Eufaula Mound site (34Mi45), also known as the Groseclose site, in McIntosh County, OK. The three associated funerary objects are one lot of ceramic sherds, one lot of red ochre, and one lot of stone pipes. The site lies at the confluence of the North Canadian and Canadian Rivers, approximately 80 kilometers west of Spiro Mounds. Following extensive damage to the site from agricultural activities and looting, excavations were carried out by the Works Progress Administration in May-August 1940. The site was later flooded following the construction of the Eufaula Dam in 1964. Collections removed during the excavations were split between the Creek Memorial Museum (now known as the Creek Nation Council House) and SNOMNH. This site has both pre-contact and historic components. This notice includes only objects from the pre-contact component. These associated funerary objects were most likely interred during the local Harlan through early Norman phases (1100-1300 CE) of the Mississippian Period. Cultural affiliation was established through Tribal Consultation, and is supported by archaeological information, ethnographic information, ethnohistorical information, and tribal oral histories. To our knowledge, no potentially hazardous materials were used to treat the associated funerary objects.
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 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 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 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 August 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 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 Department of the Air Force,
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Josh Smallwood, Vandenberg Space Force Base Cultural Resources, Installation Tribal Liaison Officer/Cultural Resources Manager, SLD 30 CES/CEIEA, 1028 Iceland Avenue, Building 11146, Vandenberg Space Force Base, CA 93437-6010 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 Department of the Air Force, 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. One associated funerary object, a charmstone, was also found. A total of 739 pieces of fragmentary human bone and one charmstone fragment were discovered in Vandenberg Space Force Base's Space Transportation System/West Coast Space Shuttle Legacy during sorting of the Inactive Storage portion of Accession numbers 200, 241, 242, and 243, curated at the University of California Santa Barbara Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections. NAGPRA items were detected only in Accession 200. Sorting and collection rehabilitation were completed May 21, 2024. No potentially hazardous substances were used to treat the human remains or funerary objects. The human remains and funerary object are reasonably identified as Chumash in origin.
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 Department of the Air Force has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of at least one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The one funerary 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 human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or 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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Department of the Air Force 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 Department of the Air Force 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 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA) has completed an inventory of human remains from Hickman County, Tennessee 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Phillip R. Hodge, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA), 1216 Foster Avenue, Cole Building #3, Nashville, TN 37243, 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 TDEC-DOA, 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. These remains were donated by TDOT to the TDEC-DOA in 1989. No record exists as to the original circumstances of collection. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
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
The TDEC-DOA has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 28, 2025 If competing requests for repatriation are received, the TDEC-DOA 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 TDEC-DOA 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 Minnesota Indian Affairs Council 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Lilly Geraghty, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 161 Rondo Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55103, 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 Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. At an unknown date prior to 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual, was removed from a cave in Duluth, Saint Louis County, Minnesota. On July 30th, 1934, E.C. Lee donated the remains to the Otter Tail Historical Society (OCHS 743). In March of 1987, the Otter Tail County Historical Society transferred the remains to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (H132).
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.
The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band) and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council 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 Minnesota Indian Affairs Council 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 Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base intends to carry out the disposition of human remains and associated funerary objects removed from Federal land to the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Disposition of the human remain and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If no claim for disposition is received by July 29, 2026, the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice will become unclaimed human remains and associated funerary objects.
Send written claims for disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Josh Smallwood, Vandenberg Space Force Base Cultural Resources, Installation Tribal Liaison Officer/Cultural Resources Manager, SLD 30 CES/CEIEA, 1028 Iceland Avenue, Building 11146, Vandenberg Space Force Base, CA 93437-6010 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 Department of the Air Force, and additional information on the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the identifications in this notice.
As part of a National Historic Preservation Act Section 110 data recovery effort, two, closely spaced 1-meter by .5-meter test units (Test Units 1 and 2) were excavated from an eroding cliff deposit at CA-SBA-697 in September 2022. The site is located on the North Base portion of Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County, California. Based on the information available, a single human bone representing one individual has been reasonably identified. Four associated funerary objects including three olivella shell beads and a shell fishhook were also recovered. Non-NAGPRA artifacts including stone flakes, hammerstones, undifferentiated marine shell and faunal bone, fire-cracked rock and charcoal were also recovered from Test Units 1 and 2.
The Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The four associated funerary objects 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.
• The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California has priority for disposition of the human remain and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
Written claims for disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the appropriate official identified in this notice under
1. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization 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 they have priority for disposition.
Disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If competing claims for disposition are received, the Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base must determine the most appropriate claimant prior to disposition. Requests for joint disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Space Force Base is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the lineal descendants, 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 Bruce Museum intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Kirsten J. Reinhardt, the Bruce Museum, One Museum Drive Greenwich, CT 06830, 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 Bruce 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 two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two sacred objects are a Makau (77.14.14
A compound fishhook made from mammal bones. In 1977, a collection of 19 objects, from a wide variety of tribal Nations, was donated by Frederic E. Ossorio (1919-2005). Some objects in the collection were reported as formerly part of the Harry Geoffrey Beasley (1881-1939) collection; Beasley was a British collector. It is unknown how Ossoriao came into possession of the objects. No potentially hazardous substances have been used to treat the objects.
A pestle made of stone (pōhaku) used to pound steamed taro (kalo) into poi, steamed ulu (breadfruit) into poi and to prepare other foods ('ai) through light pounding (ku'i). Mr. James B. Hatcher, b.1906, became editor of the Honolulu Star Bulletin in 1929 and later of the Hilo Tribune-Herald. He also wrote a tour book, “Highlights of Hawaii.” The pestle is described as having been collected at Kalapana, Hawaii in 1932. No potentially hazardous substances have been used to treat the pounder.
The Bruce Museum has determined that:
• The two sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Hui Iwi Kuamo'o.
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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Bruce 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 Bruce Museums 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 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the 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 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.
One associated funerary object was removed from the Heerwald/Jordan site (34CU27), in Custer County, OK. The one associated funerary object is one lot of ceramic vessels. This list of objects is an addition to a group of associated funerary objects previously identified in a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
This site is on private land on a ridge south of Turkey Creek, a tributary of the Washita River. This object was removed by James Schaeffer of the Highway Salvage Archaeology program in 1957, when I-40 was constructed south of old US 66, and was subsequently donated to the Museum. This site is from the Plains Village Period, Washita River phase (approximately 1250-1400 CE). This phase demonstrates continuity in material culture with known groups of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes. Oral history as well as post-contact records support the presence of the Wichita in this area. To our knowledge, no potentially hazardous chemicals were used to treat the associated funerary objects.
One associated funerary object was removed from the Brewer site (34ML3), in McClain County, OK. The one associated funerary object is one lot of ceramic vessels. This list of objects is an addition to a group of associated funerary objects previously identified in a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
This site on the south bank of the Canadian River was originally surveyed and recorded in 1950, by the University of Oklahoma. William Villines of Rosedale, OK, brought a collection from the site to the Department of Anthropology at the University in 1951. In 1986, additional collections were removed by Richard Drass, Robert Brooks, and Alan Wormser of the Oklahoma Archeological Survey, after more material was exposed by oil well workers. The collections were accessioned by the Museum in 1953 and 1988. This is a Paoli phase (900-1250 CE) settlement. The Paoli phase demonstrates continuity in the material culture with the subsequent Washita River phase and later known groups of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes. Oral history as well as post-contact records support the presence of the Wichita in this area. To our knowledge, no potentially hazardous chemicals were used to treat the associated funerary objects.
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 two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice 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 August 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 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 Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Luke Swetland, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol, Santa Barbara, CA 93105, 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 Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains include a cranium and mandible. They were removed from an unprovenienced prehistoric cemetery on one of the Channel Islands, Santa Barbara County, CA, in the 1930s and subsequently donated or sold to the U.S.C. Dental School. The head of the U.S.C. Dental School later gave them to Dr. J.D. Lowry, a family friend of John Nusser. Dr. Lowry gave Mr. Nusser the cranium and mandible sometime around 1995, when Mr. Nusser was in medical school. Mr. Nusser donated them to the Museum in 2001.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains include an acromion process of a right scapula. The human remains were anonymously mailed to the Museum in an envelope with a postmark of April 17, 2010, sent from Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Inside the envelope was a handwritten note that read, “This bone fragment along with some beads (that are lost) (??? white) were taken from the Channel Islands Hillsides more than 30 years ago by a relative. I would like to return them to where they belong. I am sure they are Chumash origin. Thank you.” No other information was provided.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California and the Tejon Indian Tribe.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 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 Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA) intends to repatriate a certain cultural item from Marion County, Tennessee that meets the definition of an unassociated funerary object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Phillip R. Hodge, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, 1216 Foster Avenue, Cole Building #3, Nashville, TN 37243, 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 TDEC-DOA, 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.
Unassociated funerary objects consisting of one ceramic strap handle bowl. This artifact was excavated by a private individual in 1942 and donated to TDEC-DOA in 1982. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
The TDEC-DOA has determined that:
• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice is 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.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Shawnee Tribe; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the TDEC-DOA must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The TDEC-DOA 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 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects from Cannon and Rutherford, Counties, Tennessee 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Phillip R. Hodge, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, 1216 Foster Avenue, Cole Building #3, Nashville, TN 37243, 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 TDEC-DOA, 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 and one lot of faunal material.
Human remains representing, at least, five individuals and one lot of faunal material. These remains were excavated in 1931 and donated to the Tennessee State Museum. They were transferred to TDEC-DOA in 2017. No further information is available regarding the circumstances of collection. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains of at least one individual were donated to the Murfreesboro, TN Police Department and transferred to TDEC-DOA in 2017.
Human remains of at least two individuals were donated to TDEC-DOA by the Rutherford County Sheriff for in 2010. No further information is available regarding the origins of these materials.
There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
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 TDEC-DOA has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of eight individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The one lot of 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 described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; 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 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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the TDEC-DOA 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 TDEC-DOA is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Dr. Mark R. Wheeler, California State University, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of nine lots of cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The nine lots of objects of cultural patrimony are one lot of modified stones, one lot of unmodified stones, one lot of faunal remains, one lot of plant remains, one lot of glass, one lot of metal material, one lot of shell, one lot of anthropogenic soil, and one lot of uncatalogued items. These include items from several sites in western Placer County, including CA-PLA-31 (accession 81-116), CA-PLA-57 (accession 81-116), CA-PLA-UNK (81-116), CA-PLA-2883 (accession 81-474), CA-PLA-2982 (accession 81-477) and an unidentified site (Teaching Collection) that were collected during various survey projects by California State University, Sacramento students and faculty. This may also include cultural items from unidentified locations in western Placer County that may be associated with the survey projects or have no documented acquisition history. The University is unaware of any treatment of the objects of cultural patrimony with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that represent a potential hazard to the objects or to persons handling the objects.
The California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The nine lots of objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA) intends to repatriate certain cultural items from Williamson County, Tennessee 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 August 28, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Phillip R. Hodge, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA), 1216 Foster Avenue, Cole Building #3, Nashville, TN 37243, 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 TDEC-DOA, 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 12 cultural items have been requested for repatriation.
The 10 unassociated funerary objects consisting of five Mississippian period ceramic vessels, three lithic adzes, and two ceramic ear ornaments. These materials were excavated by a private consultant under a Davidson County Chancery Court order in 1987, following disturbance to a stone box cemetery during grading for a residential subdivision. The associated skeletal remains were reburied by the consultant. There is no record describing the reburial location or date.
The two unassociated funerary objects consisting of one fragmentary Mississippian period jar and one lithic biface. No information is available regarding the acquisition of these materials. No information is available regarding the acquisition of these materials.
There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
The TDEC-DOA has determined that:
• The 12 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.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the TDEC-DOA 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 TDEC-DOA 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 of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Chance Ward, NAGPRA Collections Specialist, History Colorado, 1200 N Broadway, Denver, CO 80203, 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 History Colorado, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been identified. The one associated funerary object is a string of beads.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location and/or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice.
The History Colorado has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The one object described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Pawnee Nation of 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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, History Colorado 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. History Colorado 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 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects from Bedford, Coffee, Grundy, and Moore Counties, Tennessee 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Phillip R. Hodge, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA), 1216 Foster Avenue, Cole Building #3, Nashville, TN 37243, 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 TDEC-DOA, 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. The associated funerary objects are three unsorted lots of marine shell, lithics, and ceramics.
Human remains representing, at least, one adult individual. No information is available regarding the collection or donation of these materials. There is no
Human remains representing, at least, one individual. No information is available regarding the collection or donation of these materials. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual. No information is available regarding the collection or donation of these materials. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual, and three associated funerary objects consisting of three unsorted lots of marine shell, lithics, and ceramics. These remains were donated to the TDEC-DOA in 2022 by archaeology faculty from Sewanee, The University of the South. No further information is available regarding the origin of these remains or circumstances of their collection. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
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 TDEC-DOA has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four 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 Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; 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 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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the TDEC-DOA 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 TDEC-DOA 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, Merced (UC Merced) 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Robin Maria DeLugan, University of California, 5200 Lake Road, Merced, CA 95343, 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 UC Merced 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 two individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The crania of an adult and a youth, likely Native American per observation by two UC Merced biological anthropologists, were found in a house off Hwy. 49, Oakhurst, CA, when the deceased owner's home was cleared out. The human remains were brought to a UC Merced professor of archaeology sometime after 2010. Only after the professor's retirement did campus become aware of these human remains. They are in the wooden crate and in the same condition as found in the house. The person who brought the crania to campus told us that the homeowner had found the crania on his property. There are no funerary or other associated objects. They continue to be held in a safe and secure location on campus.
Based on geographical location and information provided during consultation, the human remains are affiliated to Miwok, Mono, and Yokut Tribes. The following federally recognized Miwok, Mono, and Yokut Tribes have an interest in Madera County, CA: Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, California Valley Miwok Tribe, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, Tule River Indian Tribe, and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The UC Merced has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or 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 August 28, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the UC Merced 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 UC Merced 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 August 28, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of associated funerary objects in this notice to Zachary Garrett, 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 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.
Based on the information available, two associated funerary objects were removed from the Clement 1 site (34MC8) in McCurtain County, OK. This site was excavated by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in 1941, and the associated finds were transferred to SNOMNH that same year. The two associated funerary objects are one lot of decorated ceramic vessels and one lot of undecorated ceramic vessels. These associated funerary objects were likely interred around 1200-1500 CE. Cultural affiliation was established through Tribal Consultation, and is supported by archaeological, oral traditional, and post-contact historical information. 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 two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Caddo Nation of 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 August 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 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined to affirm, with supplementary findings, the final initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337. The Commission has determined to issue a limited exclusion order prohibiting further importation of infringing products by the respondents and a cease and desist order as to one respondent.
Edward S. Jou, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3316. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on March 21, 2024, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Cooler Master Co., Ltd. of Taiwan; CMI USA, Inc. of Claremont, California; and CMC Great USA, Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, “Complainants”). 89 FR 20247-48 (Mar. 21, 2024). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components thereof, devices for controlling same, and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1-3 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,509,446 (“the '446 patent”); claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,061,450 (“the '450 patent”); and the claim of U.S. Patent No. D856,941 (“the '941 design patent”).
The '941 design patent was terminated from the investigation by withdrawal of the complaint. Order No. 7 (Sept. 6, 2024),
A claim construction hearing was held on July 19, 2024, and a claim construction order issued on November 20, 2024. Order No. 10 (Nov. 20, 2024). An evidentiary hearing was held on December 2-5, 2024.
On March 21, 2025, the ALJ issued a final initial determination (“ID”) finding a violation of section 337 based on infringement of claims 1-3 and 14 of the '446 patent and claims 1-4 of the '450 patent. The ID included a recommended determination (“RD”) on remedy and bonding that recommended issuance of a limited exclusion order directed to the Respondents and a cease and desist order directed to one respondent.
On May 22, 2025, the Commission determined to review the ID in part. 90 FR 22755-56. The Commission solicited briefing from the parties regarding certain issues under review.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the ALJ's findings and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to affirm the ID's finding of a violation of section 337 and to supplement the ID with additional findings regarding the “defining a heat exchange chamber” claim limitation and the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is to issue a limited exclusion order prohibiting further importation of infringing products by the Respondents and a cease and desist order against Respondent SilverStone Technology, Inc.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on July 24, 2025.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-775 and 731-TA-1759-1760 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of freight rail couplers and parts thereof from Czech Republic and India, provided for in subheading 8607.30.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of India. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by September 8, 2025. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by September 15, 2025.
July 23, 2025.
Camille Bryan, (202-205-2811) and Jordan Harriman (202-205-2610), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Wonderland Switzerland AG, Iron Mountains, LLC, Nuna International B.V., Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc., Joie International Co., Ltd., Joie Children's Products, Inc., and Graco Children's Products Inc. on July 24, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain child car seats. The complaint names as respondents: Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. of Foxboro, MA; Dorel Industries Inc. of Canada; Guangdong Roadmate Group Co., Ltd. of China; Roadmate Trading (Hong Kong) Limited of Hong Kong; Zhongshan Roadmate Juvenile Products Co. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3840”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Department of Justice.
Notice that agency has replaced 30-Day notices for OMB Control Numbers 1140-0032, 1140-0073, 1140-0081, and 1140-0092.
On July 10, 2025, the Department of Justice erroneously published 30-day notices for four information collection requests. These notices were incorrect, were published prematurely, and the reginfo.gov system did not open them for public comment. The Department published correct notices for these same four ICRs, on July 23, 2025, each with an open 30-day public notice and comment period. Reviewers should disregard the notices published on July 10 and instead review and comment on the notices published on July 23, 2025.
Persons interested in commenting on these information collections must submit comments on or before August 22, 2025.
You should submit written comments and recommendations for the correct information collections discussed in this notice at
Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer; Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division; United States Department of Justice; Two Constitution Square; 145 N Street NE, 4W-218; Washington, DC 20530.
On July 10, 2025 (90 FR 30701-30705), the Department of Justice erroneously published 30-day notices for four information collection requests: 1140-0032 Records of Acquisition and Disposition: Dealers/Pawnbrokers of Type 01/02 Firearms, and Collectors of Type 03 Firearms; 1140-0073 Furnishing of Explosives Samples; 1140-0081 Appeals of Background Checks; and 1140-0092 Voluntary Magazine Questionnaire for Agencies/Entities That Store Explosive Materials. These notices were incorrect, were published prematurely, and the reginfo.gov system did not open them for public comment. Thereafter, the Department published correct notices for these same four ICRs as planned, on July 23, 2025 (90 FR 34674-34677), each with an open 30-day public notice and comment period that ends on August 22, 2025. As a result, the Department is issuing this notice to inform the public that the first set of notices issued on July 10, 2025, are invalid and canceled. Reviewers and commenters should instead review and comment on the notices published on July 23, 2025.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice and request for comments.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) 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.
Written comments should be received on or before September 29, 2025 to be assured consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collection to Dacia Rogers, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, Suite 6043; Fax No. (703) 519-8161; or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by contacting Dacia Rogers at (703) 518-6547.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board.
Weeks of July 28, August 4, 11, 18, 25, and September 1, 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 July 28, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 4, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 11, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 18, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 25, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 1, 2025.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a September 28, 2023, request from Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI), on behalf of Holtec Palisades, LLC. The exemption supports the reauthorization of power operations at the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP), and allows for a one-time rescission of the docketed decommissioning certifications to remove the restriction that prohibits operation of the PNP reactor and emplacement and retention of fuel into the PNP reactor vessel. The NRC is also rescinding six exemptions that were previously granted based on PNP's decommissioning status.
The exemption was issued on July 24, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0346 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:
•
•
•
Justin C. Poole, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2048; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
PNP consists of a single pressurized-water reactor located in Covert Township, Michigan, along the shoreline of Lake Michigan. Originally licensed for operation on March 24, 1971, the NRC issued a renewed operating license for PNP on January 17, 2007, with the renewed operating license term expiring on March 24, 2031. By letter dated January 4, 2017 (ML17004A062), pursuant to title 10 of the
On May 20, 2022, PNP permanently ceased power operations. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii), by letter dated June 13, 2022 (ML22164A067), Entergy certified to the NRC that all fuel had been permanently removed from the PNP reactor vessel and placed in the spent fuel pool (SFP) on June 10, 2022. These certifications were docketed by the NRC. Upon docketing the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications, 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) no longer authorizes operation of the PNP reactor, or emplacement or retention of fuel into the PNP reactor vessel. Shortly after PNP transitioned to a permanently shut down and defueled facility in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), Holtec Palisades, LLC assumed ownership of PNP, and HDI became the licensed operator for decommissioning PNP (ML22173A173) and began the decommissioning process.
In early 2023, HDI engaged with the NRC staff regarding the potential restart of reactor operation at PNP. By letter dated March 13, 2023 (ML23072A404), HDI submitted its proposed regulatory path to resume power operations at PNP through a series of licensing and regulatory actions to restore the plant's licensing basis to the one in effect just prior to permanent shut down. Specifically, from September 2023 to May 2024, the NRC received the following licensing and regulatory requests related to the potential restart of Palisades:
• A September 28, 2023, request for an exemption “from the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) restriction that prohibits reactor power operations and retention of fuel in the reactor vessel . . . by allowing for a one-time rescission of the docketed 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications.” (ML23271A140).
• A December 6, 2023, license transfer application, seeking NRC consent to, and a conforming amendment for, a transfer of operating authority from HDI to Palisades Energy, LLC under Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 for Palisades and the general license for the Palisades Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) (ML23340A161) (License Transfer Application).
• A December 14, 2023, license amendment request in support of resuming power operations that largely seeks to undo the changes made by the previously issued permanently defueled technical specifications amendment with some proposed differences from the previous operating reactor technical specifications (ML23348A148) (Power Operations TS Amendment).
• A February 9, 2024, license amendment request in support of resuming power operations that largely seeks to undo the changes made by the previously issued defueled administrative controls amendment with some proposed differences from the previous operating reactor technical specifications (ML24040A089) (Administrative Controls Amendment).
• A May 1, 2024, license amendment request to revise the Palisades site emergency plan to support resuming power operations (ML24122C666) (Emergency Plan Amendment).
• A May 24, 2024, license amendment request to revise the Palisades main steam line break analysis to “support the Palisades restart project.” (ML24145A145) (MSLB Amendment).
While this exemption is a necessary part of Holtec's regulatory approach to support restoration of the PNP power operations licensing basis, the NRC's approval of this exemption is not sufficient to authorize operation of the reactor, or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel. NRC approval of all the licensing and regulatory requests listed above is necessary to restore the PNP power operations licensing basis and reauthorize power operations at PNP.
Accordingly, separate from this exemption, the NRC staff has reviewed and approved the License Transfer Application (ML25167A245), the Power Operations TS Amendment (ML25157A127), the Administrative Controls TS Amendment (ML25157A107), the Emergency Plan Amendment (ML25150A281), and the MSLB Amendment (ML25156A045). The staff is issuing its approval of these actions concurrently with its approval of this exemption to reauthorize power operations at PNP.
By letter dated September 28, 2023 (ML23271A140), Holtec Decommissioning International LLC, on behalf of Holtec Palisades LLC
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50: (1) when the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when any of the special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present. These special circumstances include, among others:
(ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule;
The requested exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) would allow for a one-time rescission of the docketed 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications to remove the restriction that prohibits operation of the PNP reactor and emplacement and retention of fuel into the PNP reactor vessel. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12, allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when the exemptions are authorized by law. The NRC staff has determined that granting the proposed one-time exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; other laws; or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The requested exemption, by itself, does not authorize plant operation or change the conditions of the plant in any manner. The one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) would allow Holtec the ability to rescind the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications, such that the current restrictions that prohibit operation of the PNP reactor and emplacement and retention of fuel into the PNP reactor vessel would no longer be in place. These regulatory restrictions in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) in would no longer be in place once the certifications are rescinded; however, as discussed in Section I, the NRC has concurrently reviewed and approved the transfer of operating authority and the license amendment requests associated with restoring the power operations licensing basis (
The requested exemption would allow for a one-time rescission of the decommissioning certifications in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and would not, by itself, alter the design, function, or operation of any structures or plant equipment that is necessary to maintain the safe and secure status of the plant, and will not adversely affect Holtec's ability to physically secure the site or protect special nuclear material. As discussed in Section I, the NRC has reviewed and approved the transfer of operating authority and the license amendment requests associated with restoring the power operations licensing basis to allow for and ensure the safe loading of fuel into the reactor and operation of the plant. As part of this review, the NRC determined that PNP's safeguards and security programs, as found in the Physical Security Plan, will meet the regulatory requirements necessary to support the resumption of power operations at PNP (ML25157A127). Therefore, the proposed exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever, “[a]pplication of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.” The regulation at 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) prohibits operation of the reactor and emplacement and retention of fuel in the reactor vessel upon docketing the decommissioning certifications described in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1). The underlying purpose of this regulation is to provide the licensee with a key means of communicating to the NRC and the public the licensee's plans for decommissioning the reactor, as discussed in NRC-2015-0070,
Additionally, the certifications identify the point in time when a reactor formally enters the decommissioning process. Specifically, the docketing of the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications serves as a discrete date to transition the inspection program for the plant from an operating to a decommissioning status, to restructure the NRC fees associated with operating a facility, and to allow the licensee to begin the process of implementing reductions to various site programs (
As stated above, the underlying purpose of the rule is for communication regarding a licensee's formal entrance into the decommissioning process and to provide a discrete point in time to mark the transition from operations to decommissioning. Application of the rule as written would not permit a licensee in decommissioning for which the § 50.82(a) certifications have been docketed, in this particular circumstance, Holtec, to seek to restart the reactor and exit the decommissioning process. Moreover, it would prohibit Holtec from exiting the decommissioning process regardless of the outcome of the NRC's review of Holtec's licensing requests seeking the restoration of the PNP's power operations licensing basis. As noted in Section I, the NRC staff has concurrently reviewed and approved the transfer of operating authority and the license amendment requests associated with restoring the power operations licensing basis to support the reauthorization of power operations at PNP. There is nothing in the rulemaking basis for 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) to indicate that the prohibitions prescribed by the regulation were intended to be irreversible. Additionally, in denying a petition for rulemaking, the Commission stated that “the NRC may consider requests from licensees to resume operations under the existing regulatory framework” Criteria To Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations, (86 FR 24362; May 6, 2021). Finally, even if PNP resumes power operations, the facility would still need to be decommissioned, following submission and docketing of the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications after any subsequent period of operation. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that application of the regulation, in the particular circumstances of Holtec seeking to resume power operations at PNP, does not serve the underlying purpose of the rule. Accordingly, the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist and support approval of the requested exemption.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.30, 51.31, and 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment as discussed in the NRC staff's Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact issued on May 30, 2025 (90 FR 23071).
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Holtec a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) to allow for a one-time rescission of the PNP docketed 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications to remove the restriction that prohibits operation of the PNP reactor and emplacement and retention of fuel into the PNP reactor vessel.
The Commission also considered Holtec's request that the NRC rescind the six exemptions discussed in Section II coincident with the implementation of this exemption. The Commission concludes that these six exemptions should be rescinded upon the effectiveness of this exemption
By letter dated July 1, 2025 (ML25182A066), Holtec submitted a notification reporting its readiness to implement the power operations licensing basis. In this letter Holtec stated that they planned to transition to the power operations licensing basis on August 25, 2025. Therefore, this exemption is effective on August 25, 2025.
Dated: July 24, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing requests with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add certain Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contracts to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Date of notice: July 29, 2025.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:
Documents are available at
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the NSCC Rules & Procedures (“Rules”) to enhance the Automated Customer Account Transfer Service (“ACATS”) account transfer process.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the NSCC Rules to accommodate proposed enhancements to ACATS to improve the efficiency of the account transfer process. Specifically, the proposed rule change would modify NSCC Rule 50 (Automated Customer Account Transfer Service) to reflect the removal of (i) the settlement preparation stage of the ACATS process (“Settle Prep” or the “Settle Prep Day”) and (ii) the second day of the Fund/SERV®
ACATS is a non-guaranteed service provided by NSCC that enables Members to effect transfers of customer accounts among themselves. ACATS complements Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Rule 11870 regarding customer account transfers, which requires FINRA members to use automated clearing agency customer account transfer services and to effect customer account transfers within specified time frames.
ACATS is primarily described in Rule 50 and Procedure XVIII (ACATS Settlement Accounting Operation) of the NSCC Rules. Pursuant to NSCC Rule 50, an NSCC Member to whom a customer's account will be transferred (the “Receiving Member”) initiates the transfer by submitting a transfer initiation request to NSCC, which contains the customer detail information that the NSCC Member who currently has the account (the “Delivering Member”) requires to transfer the account.
NSCC is currently working with the industry to streamline the ACATS process and shorten the time it takes to complete a customer account transfer in ACATS. Specifically, ACATS is being enhanced by removing the Settle Prep Day and the second day of the Fund/SERV pending acknowledgement process from the ACATS transfer process, as further described below. As a result, NSCC is proposing changes to the NSCC Rules to conform to and accommodate these enhancements.
There are currently four stages of an ACATS transfer, which can take up to five days to complete. The first stage is the “Request Period” (Day 1), during which the Receiving Member initiates the transfer. The second stage is the “Review Period” (Days 2-3), during which the Delivering Member confirms the assets currently in the account so the Receiving Member can review and determine if it will accept or reject the account.
During this five-day period, an investor's assets remain invested in the market; however, trading for these assets may be restricted. The inability to trade such assets may expose the investor to additional market risks. With the move to the T+1 settlement cycle in May 2024,
Previously, under the T+2 settlement cycle, daily ACATS transfer processing completed at approximately 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Under the T+1 settlement cycle, Members now have until 10:45 p.m. to submit CNS exemptions and priority instructions.
As described above, ACATS facilitates account transfers that may include Fund/SERV Eligible Fund
As described above, during the Review Period of an ACATS transfer, the Delivering Member confirms the assets in the account to be transferred so that the Receiving Member can review and determine if it will accept or reject the account. If the Receiving Member accepts the mutual fund transfer, it submits a mutual fund registration record (“FR Record”) to ACATS before the end of the Review Period. The FR Record is then processed by ACATS and passed to Fund/SERV, which then passes it to the mutual fund. Once the FR Record is submitted, the account transfer has passed from Review Status to Settle Prep Status.
Currently, the mutual fund company has until 11:00 a.m. on the second day after receipt of the fund re-registration request through Fund/SERV to acknowledge/accept or reject the mutual fund re-registration requests associated with an ACATS transaction. The acknowledgement also offsets the original incentive charge applied to the asset during the ACATS transaction.
NSCC proposes to amend Rule 50 to reflect the upcoming elimination of the Settle Prep Day and the second day of the Fund/SERV pending acknowledgement process from the ACATS transfer process. NSCC Rule 50 and Procedure XVIII do not contain information describing the specific number of days in the transfer process, the Settle Prep Day, or the specific number of days in the Fund/SERV pending acknowledgement process. However, Rule 50 does contain descriptions of the settlement dates for certain types of transfers, and some of these descriptions will be impacted by the removal of the Settle Prep Day and the second day of the Fund/SERV pending acknowledgement process. NSCC therefore proposes to amend Rule 50 so that those Rules conform with forthcoming changes to the ACATS process.
NSCC proposes to amend Section 12.3.(ii) of Rule 50 to remove language related to the two-day settlement timeline for certain options and Fund/SERV assets. Section 12 of Rule 50 describes the transfer of (i) residual credit positions; (ii) partial accounts; (iii) cash in respect of fail positions for which delivery is unable to be completed; and (iv) cash or securities mistakenly delivered as part of ACATS (“Reclaims”), other than Fund/SERV Eligible Fund assets and positions eligible for processing at another registered clearing agency (“ACAT RCA”). Specifically, the rule states that the settlement date for all such transfers is one business day following the day NSCC receives the transfer request unless the request includes, among other things, options assets which are eligible for processing at an ACAT RCA or Fund/SERV Eligible Fund assets, whereby the settlement date for all assets included in the transfer shall be two business days following the day NSCC receives the transfer request. NSCC proposes to remove this sub-paragraph from Section 12.3 of Rule 50 to reflect the elimination of the Settle Prep Day and the second day of the Fund/SERV pending acknowledgement process and that such transfers would now be settled on the first business day after NSCC receives the transfer request. NSCC would also make conforming changes to the Rule to reflect the removal of this sub-paragraph and make a typographical correction to the Rule.
NSCC also proposes to amend Section 13 of Rule 50 to remove a statement concerning a two-day settlement timeline for certain transfers containing options assets or Fund/SERV Eligible Fund assets. Pursuant to Section 13 of Rule 50, a Receiving Member may submit a request to a Delivering Member to initiate the transfer of a partial customer account. For partial settlements, if the Delivering Member submits detailed account asset data, and the transfer is not rejected by the Receiving Member, the settlement date for the transfer request is generally one business day after the Delivering Member has submitted the asset account data, unless the transfer contains options assets or Fund/SERV Eligible Fund assets, in which case the settlement date for all assets will be two business days after the Delivering Member has submitted the asset account data. As a result of the proposed elimination of Settle Prep Day and the second day of the Fund/SERV pending acknowledgement process, future transfers containing options assets or Fund/SERV Eligible Fund assets would now settle one business day after the Delivering Member has submitted the asset account data.
Subject to approval by the Commission, NSCC would implement
NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
As described above, NSCC is working with the industry to remove the Settle Prep Day and the second day of the Fund/SERV pending acknowledgement process from the ACATS transfer process. The changes would expedite the time it takes to complete a customer account transfer in ACATS, reducing the amount of time that an investor's assets would remain invested in the market without the ability for the investor to trade such assets. While NSCC Rule 50 and Procedure XVIII do not contain information describing the specific number of days in the transfer process, the Settle Prep Day, or the specific number of days in the Fund/SERV pending acknowledgement process, Rule 50 does contain descriptions of the settlement dates for certain types of transfers, and some of these descriptions will be impacted by the removal of the Settle Prep Day and the second day of the Fund/SERV pending acknowledgement process. The proposed rule change would amend the NSCC Rules to conform to and accommodate the upcoming removal of the Settle Prep Day and the second day of the Fund/SERV pending acknowledgement process. As a result, NSCC believes the proposed changes would promote the prompt and accurate settlement of ACATS account transfers and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds associated with such transfers. For these reasons, NSCC believes the proposed rule change would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of NSCC or for which it is responsible in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments,
NSCC reserves the right not to respond to any comments 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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 18a-3 establishes minimum margin requirements for nonbank security-based swap dealers (“SBSDs”) and nonbank major security-based swap participants (“MSBSPs”) for non-cleared security-based swaps. Under Rule 18a-3(e), nonbank SBSDs are required to monitor the risk of each account that holds non-cleared security based swaps for a counterparty and to establish, maintain, and document procedures and guidelines for monitoring the risk of accounts as part of its risk management control system required under Exchange Act Rule 15c3-4. In addition, Rule 18a-3(d)(2) provides that a nonbank SBSD seeking approval to use a model to calculate initial margin will be subject to an application process consistent with Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1e and paragraph (d) of Exchange Act Rule 18a-1, as applicable, governing the use of internal models to compute net capital.
The total annual hour burden associated with Rule 18a-3 is approximately 1,030 hours calculated as follows:
The Commission staff estimates that there are 13 nonbank SBSDs that are subject to Rule 18a-3(e). The staff further estimates that each nonbank SBSD would spend an average of approximately 60 hours per year reviewing risks associated with its counterparties pursuant to the procedures and guidelines implemented by each nonbank SBSD, for an annual industry-wide ongoing burden of approximately 780 recordkeeping hours.
With respect to Rule 18a-3(d)(2), the Commission estimates that one nonbank SBSD uses a model to calculate initial margin and that this nonbank SBSD will spend approximately 250 hours per year reviewing, updating, and back testing its initial margin model, resulting in a total industry-wide ongoing annual hour burden of approximately 250 recordkeeping hours.
The total annual hour burden associated with Rule 18a-3 is thus approximately 1,030 hours (780 hours + 250 hours).
The Commission estimates that there is no annual cost burden associated with Rule 18a-3 as the previously estimated start-up costs have already been incurred.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
On April 9, 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 June 12, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described in more detail in the Notice,
According to the Exchange, the investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of AVAX,
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 AVAX, 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 August 19, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by September 2, 2025.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF (the “Trust”), shares (“Shares”) of which have been approved by the Commission to list and trade on the Exchange pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5711(d), to allow for “in-kind” transfers of the Trust's bitcoin and ether.
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 Commission approved the listing and trading of the Shares of the Trust under Nasdaq Rule 5711(d)
In the Hashdex Original Filing, the Exchange represented that the Trust would only allow for cash creations and redemptions.
Specifically, as noted in the Hashdex Original Filing, the Sponsor executed an agreement so that Coinbase Inc. could serve as the Trust's “Prime Execution Agent.” In this capacity, the Prime Execution Agent will facilitate the transfer of bitcoin and ether between the Trust and an Authorized Participant,
Further, as noted in the Hashdex Original Filing, the Trust issues and redeems “Baskets”
In connection with Share creations and redemptions, Authorized Participants would deliver either cash or, in the case of in-kind transactions, bitcoin and ether to the Trust, and would receive either cash or bitcoin and ether, as applicable.
For the creation of a Basket, the Authorized Participant is required to submit the order by 2:00 p.m. ET, or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier (the “Order Cutoff Time”).
Specifically, in connection with in-kind creations and redemptions, the Authorized Participants will submit orders to create Baskets in exchange for bitcoin and ether. On settlement date for an in-kind creation, the Trust delivers Shares to the Authorized Participant in exchange for bitcoin and ether received from the Authorized Participant, or its designated agent or client. The Authorized Participant (or its designated agent or client) will deposit such bitcoin and ether into the Trust's account.
In the event the Authorized Participant, or its designated agent or client, has not deposited the bitcoin and ether to the Trust's account by the applicable time on the settlement date of the in-kind creation order, the
In the event the Authorized Participant has not deposited the Shares to the Trust, by the applicable time on the settlement date of the in-kind redemption order, the Authorized Participant may elect to (1) cancel the in-kind creation order, (2) delay settlement of the order to enable delivery of the Shares at a later date, or (3) accept that the Trust will cancel the in-kind creation order.
On the settlement date for an in-kind redemption, the Trust transfers bitcoin and ether to the Authorized Participant (or its designated agent or client) against receipt of the corresponding Shares.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that permitting in-kind transfers with respect to the Trust's creation and redemption process promotes just and equitable principles of trade and helps remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. As discussed above, the proposed changes would permit the Trust to utilize an in-kind creation and redemption process in addition to the cash creation and redemption process. This added ability would make the Trust (and the market more generally) operate more efficiently because Authorized Participants, their designated agents or clients, would be able to source bitcoin and ether rather than to provide cash to the Trust and/or receive bitcoin and ether from the Trust. This means that the Authorized Participant, its designated agent or client, would be responsible for buying and selling the bitcoin and ether rather than the Trust itself, which would potentially lessen the impact on the market of the Trust on both sides of the transaction by allowing the Authorized Participant to decide how and where to source the underlying bitcoin and ether for creations and deciding how, where, and whether to sell the underlying bitcoin and ether for redemptions. This could lead to improvements in the creation and redemption process for both Authorized Participants and the Trust, and could potentially increase efficiency, and ultimately benefit the end investors in the Trust.
Except for the changes described above, all other representations in the Hashdex Original Filing remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continued listing requirements. In addition, the Trust will continue to comply with the terms of the Hashdex Original Filing and the requirements in Rule 5711(d).
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. As discussed above, the proposed amendments are intended to reflect changes to the Trust's creation and redemption process, specifically to allow for in-kind transfers. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would increase operational efficiencies for the Trust (and the market more generally). The Exchange believes these changes will not impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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.
The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the Optional Peg Rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 4.63 percent for the July-September quarter of FY 2025.
Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for any Third Party Lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given State.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before August 18, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2025-1005 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mickenzie Roby, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, at 202-267-9677.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before August 18, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2025-1630] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jake Troutman, (202) 267-2928, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to designate supplemental type certificate as abandoned; request for comments.
This notice announces the FAA's intent to designate Harlan Associates of Spruce Creek, Inc. Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SA1806SO as abandoned and make the related engineering data available upon request. The FAA has received a request to provide engineering data concerning this STC. The FAA has been unsuccessful in contacting Harlan Associates of Spruce Creek, Inc. concerning the STC. This action is intended to enhance aviation safety.
The FAA must receive all comments by January 26, 2026.
You may send comments on this notice by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Cherice Clarke, Correspondence Specialist, FAA, East Certification Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone: 404-474-5537; email:
The FAA invites interested parties to provide comments, written data, views, or arguments relating to this notice. Send your comments using a method listed under the
The FAA is posting this notice to inform the public that the FAA intends to designate Harlan Associates of Spruce Creek, Inc. STC No. SA1806SO, for the installation of nose landing gear tires, sized 15 x 6.0-6 6 PR in lieu of the 6.0-6 6 PR, on Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model (type certificate previously held by The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.) PA-24, PA-30 and PA-39 aircraft, as abandoned and subsequently release the related engineering data.
The FAA has received a third-party request for the release of the aforementioned engineering data under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The FAA cannot release commercial or financial information under FOIA without the permission of the data owner. However, in accordance with title 49 of the United States Code § 44704(a)(5), the FAA can provide STC “engineering data” it possesses for STC maintenance or improvement, upon request, if the following conditions are met:
1. The FAA determines the STC has been inactive for 3 years or more;
2. Using due diligence, the FAA is unable to locate the owner of record or the owner of record's heir; and
3. The availability of such data will enhance aviation safety.
There has been no activity on this STC for more than 3 years.
On April 18, 2025, the FAA sent a certified letter to Harlan Associates of Spruce Creek, Inc. at its last known address: 1326 South Ridgewood Avenue #5, Daytona Beach, FL 32114-6193. The letter informed Harlan Associates of Spruce Creek, Inc. that the FAA had received a request for engineering data related to STC No. SA1806SO and was conducting a due diligence search to determine whether the STC was inactive and may be considered abandoned. The letter further requested that the company respond in writing within 60 days and state whether it is the holder of the STC. The FAA also attempted to make contact with Harlan Associates of Spruce Creek, Inc. by other means, including registered mail, without success.
If you are the owner or heir or a transferee of STC No. SA1806SO or have any knowledge regarding who may now hold STC No. SA1806SO, please contact Cherice Clarke using a method described in this notice under
If the FAA does not receive any response by January 26, 2026, the FAA will consider STC No. SA1806SO abandoned, and the FAA will proceed with the release of the requested data. This action is for the purpose of maintaining the airworthiness of an aircraft and enhancing aviation safety.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as Federal lead agency, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound 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 Everett Link Extension (EVLE) and Operations and Maintenance Facility North (OMF North) Project (Project). The Project would extend Link light rail 16 miles from the existing Lynnwood City Center Station to the Everett Station area in Snohomish County, Washington, and improve connections to the regional transit system and major activity centers. The Project would also include construction of a light rail operations and maintenance facility (OMF) in Snohomish County to support the regional Link light rail program, including EVLE.
Comments related to the NEPA review of the Project must be received on or before August 28, 2025. The joint lead agencies will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable, as well as the comments received during this NEPA scoping period and the prior Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) scoping process. Commenters who previously provided SEPA scoping comments do not need to resubmit those comments for consideration under NEPA, but may elect to do so.
Comments on the scope of the EIS should be directed to Kathy Fendt, North Corridor Environmental Manager, in one of four ways:
•
•
•
• Provided by phone at 425-243-6255.
For FTA: Todd Tillinger, 206-220-7538,
FTA and Sound Transit (the Agencies) will prepare the EIS in accordance with NEPA, FTA environmental statute (Efficient environmental reviews for project decisionmaking and One Federal Decision, 23 U.S.C. 139), FTA environmental regulations (23 CFR part 771), and SEPA. This notice initiates NEPA scoping for the EIS, provides information on the nature of the proposed transit project, invites participation in the EIS process, provides information about the purpose and need for the proposed transit project, includes general information on the range of alternatives being considered for evaluation in the EIS, and identifies potential environmental impacts to be considered. It also invites comments from Tribes, agencies, and interested members of the public on the above information and announces upcoming public scoping meetings. Alternatives being considered for evaluation in the EIS include a No Build Alternative and various Build Alternatives for the light rail line and OMF North in the EVLE corridor. The alternatives were developed through a local planning process including a Regional Transit Long-Range Plan (2014), a regional system plan of transit investments (Sound Transit 3 (ST3)), an early scoping and alternatives development process specific to the EVLE corridor under NEPA (see 86 FR 61387, November 5, 2021), and EIS scoping under SEPA. During the alternatives development process, Sound Transit worked with Tribes, agencies, and the public to identify and evaluate over 50 alignment and station alternatives and 18 sites for OMF North to determine which alternatives to take into the EIS process. Results of the early scoping, alternatives development, and SEPA EIS scoping processes and other background technical reports are available on the Project website:
The purpose and need statement establishes the basis for developing and evaluating a range of reasonable alternatives for environmental review and assists with the identification of a Preferred Alternative. The purpose of the Project is to expand the Link light rail system from the Lynnwood City Center Link Station to the Everett Station area and provide an OMF to:
• Provide high quality, rapid, reliable, accessible, and efficient light rail transit service to communities in the Project corridor as defined through the local planning process and reflected in the ST3 Plan.
• Improve regional mobility by increasing connectivity and capacity in the EVLE corridor from the Lynnwood Transit Center to the Everett Station area to meet projected transit demand.
• Connect regional centers as described in adopted regional and local land use, transportation, and economic development plans and Sound Transit's
• Implement a system that is technically and financially feasible to build, operate, and maintain.
• Expand mobility for the corridor and the region's residents, including explicit consideration for those who use transit as a primary means of transportation.
• Encourage sustainable growth in station areas through support of transit-oriented development and multimodal integration in a manner that is consistent with local land use plans and policies.
• Encourage convenient and safe non-motorized access to transit stations, such as bicycle and pedestrian
• Preserve and promote a healthy environment and economy by minimizing adverse impacts on the natural, built, and socioeconomic environments through sustainable practices.
• Provide an OMF with the capacity to receive, test, commission, store, maintain, and deploy vehicles to support the intended level of service for system-wide light rail expansion.
• Develop an OMF that supports efficient and reliable light rail service and minimizes system operating costs.
• Chronic roadway congestion on Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route (SR) 99, two primary highways connecting communities along the corridor, delays today's travelers, including those using transit, and degrades the reliability of bus service traversing the corridor, particularly during commute periods.
• These chronic, degraded conditions are expected to continue to worsen as the region's population and employment grow.
• Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the regional metropolitan planning organization, and local plans call for high-capacity transit in the corridor consistent with PSRC's
• Snohomish County residents and communities, including those who use transit as a primary means of transportation, need long-term regional mobility and multimodal connectivity, as called for in the Washington State Growth Management Act.
• Increased residential and/or employment density at and around high-capacity stations and increased options for multimodal access are called for by regional and local plans.
• Prioritizing transportation investments that decrease vehicle miles traveled, and their resulting environmental impacts, is a goal of the state and region, as established in Washington state law and embodied in PSRC's
• The current regional system lacks an OMF with sufficient capacity and suitable location to support the efficient and reliable long-term operations for system-wide light rail expansion, including the next phase of light rail expansion in Snohomish and King counties.
• New light rail maintenance and storage capacity needs to be available with sufficient time to accept delivery of and commission new vehicles to meet fleet expansion needs and to store existing vehicles while the new vehicles are tested and prepared.
Sound Transit is proposing to extend Link light rail transit service north from Lynnwood City Center Station to the Everett Station area along an alignment that is approximately 16 miles long and includes six light rail stations that serve the following areas: West Alderwood, Ash Way, Mariner, Southwest Everett Industrial Center, SR 526/Evergreen, and Everett Station. Sound Transit is also evaluating a seventh provisional station in the SR 99/Airport Road area in the EIS, but this station is not currently funded for construction. The Project also includes a new OMF that will support the system-wide Link light rail system, to be located along the alignment in Snohomish County. Information about the proposed project, early scoping, the alternatives development process, and the EIS process are available on the Project website at
The Build Alternatives are generally described as follows:
• The Link light rail alternatives would run elevated from the southern end of the Project, through the Alderwood Mall area then return to the I-5, corridor, south of I-405. The alternatives would continue north as either elevated or at-grade configurations along I-5, passing through the Ash Way area and turning west along 128th Street SW in the Mariner area. The alternatives would continue along Airport Road until turning east in the SW Everett Industrial Center area and following SR 526 until it meets I-5. The alternatives would then continue north, with tail tracks terminating beyond the elevated station options near the Everett Station area.
• Three OMF North site alternatives are currently under consideration: south of the proposed SR 99/Airport Road station area and on the western side of SR 99; on the east side of Airport Road between the SR 99/Airport Road and SW Everett Industrial Center stations across from Seattle Paine Field International Airport; and on the north side of SR 526 generally between SR 526 and 75th Street SW, east of 16th Avenue W.
FTA and Sound Transit will evaluate (with input from Tribes, agencies, and the public) the potential impacts of the alternatives on the natural, built, and socioeconomic environments. Likely areas of investigation include transportation, land use and consistency with applicable plans, land acquisition and displacements, socioeconomics, park and recreation resources, historic and cultural resources, visual and aesthetic qualities, air quality, noise and vibration, energy use, safety and security, and ecosystems, including threatened and endangered species and wetlands. The EIS will evaluate short-term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts. The EIS will also propose measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts.
The scoping process and agency coordination will identify permits and approvals required from Tribes and Federal, state, and local agencies, and these will be listed in the EIS. FTA and Sound Transit anticipate the following Federal permits and authorizations may include:
• Federal Transit Administration
Below is a tentative schedule for the decisionmaking process, including environmental review milestones:
•
•
•
•
As noted in the tentative schedule, the Agencies intend to complete the EIS for the Project within two years. The Agencies will accept public comments on the scope of the EIS until August 28,
Notices of public meetings, including hearings, will be given through a variety of media providing the time and place of the meeting along with other relevant information. Meeting date, time, and location information can be found on the Project website at:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments on revision of a currently approved collection of information.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This document describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek a revision to an OMB-approved collection titled, “Drivers' Use of Camera-Based Rear Visibility Systems Versus Traditional Mirrors” identified by OMB Control Number 2127-0756. The collection is currently approved through July 31, 2025, and supports research addressing safety-related aspects of drivers' use of camera-based rear visibility systems designed to replace or supplement vehicle rearview mirrors. This collection is necessary to inform next steps on an ANPRM NHTSA published in response to two petitions requesting revision of FMVSS No. 111 to permit such camera-based systems as an alternative compliance option for certain current requirements specifying rearview mirrors. This revision includes changes in respondents and thus a change in burden hours and requests an extension to continue data collection. A
Comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden, should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Elizabeth Mazzae, Applied Crash Avoidance Research Division, Vehicle Research and Test Center, NHTSA, 10820 State Route 347—Bldg. 60, East Liberty, Ohio 43319; Telephone (937) 666-4511; email address:
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The research examines the use of camera-based visibility systems versus rearview mirrors for both light vehicles and heavy trucks. Research participants are volunteers who are members of the general public, who are licensed car and/or commercial truck drivers aged 25 to 65 years. Research participants experience a vehicle equipped with a production or prototype camera-based visibility system and/or an FMVSS No. 111-compliant rearview mirror system. The research uses stationary, track-based, and on-road, semi-naturalistic driving experimentation as a means of collecting data needed to support the rulemaking effort. The collection of information will consist of (1) Interest Response Form to be administered up to 792 potential research participants, (2) Candidate Screening Questions to be administered up to 578 potential research participants, (3) Study Data Collection, (4) Post-Drive Questionnaire: Drive with Camera-Monitor System, (5) Post-Drive Questionnaire: Drive with Mirrors, and (6) Post-Drive Questionnaire: Final Opinions. This collection provides flexibility to collect additional information to address critical research questions raised during the course of this research that are deemed necessary to support rulemaking.
This is a revision of a currently approved information collection (IC) to extend the approval period, adjust the number of respondents annually, and revise the burden calculations based on data collection completed as of March 14, 2025. The currently approved collection permitted 200 respondents annually across multiple complementary studies within the research taking place over the original approved period. In this extension request, NHTSA is requesting 156 respondents annually over the three-year approval period. This notice provides changes from the current collection to this revision in the number of respondents for some individual information collections, the time for completion of some individual information collections, wages, and federal wage rates. Additionally, NHTSA has included contractor costs that were unintentionally excluded from the original collection.
A
Daimler Truck North America (“DTNA”) submitted a comment that did not address the topic of PRA clearance. Rather, the comment encouraged NHTSA to take action to support the deployment of camera-based rear visibility systems for commercial motor vehicles.
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) commented regarding the invited topic of “whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NHTSA, including whether the information will have practical utility,” as was stated in the 60-day
1. NAMIC commented that the 60-day notice content would have been more helpful if it provided greater detail regarding “the safety purposes behind tracking drivers' eye glance behavior and aspects of driving performance with rearview mirrors and camera-based systems.”
2. NAMIC also commented that “more specifics on how and why the size and composition representative sample was determined to be of value would be instructive to considering practical value of the exercise.” NAMIC also commented that “A one-time study of the eye movement of 156 Midwest drivers may in fact provide practical value to a safety assessment, but it may also seem more anecdotal than demonstrative.”
3. Lastly, NAMIC also commented that NHTSA did not address the cost side of a cost benefit analysis relating to the research, did not define which of the 1,994 respondents will receive pay or expenses, or how much, and that the notice states “Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0.”
NHTSA appreciates the review, consideration, and support of the research. No changes to the information collection were necessary as a result of these comments.
Research participants will be paid volunteers from the Columbus, OH area who are licensed car and/or commercial truck drivers aged 25-65 years, drive at least 11,000 miles annually, are in good health, and do not require assistive devices to safely operate a vehicle and drive continuously for a period of up to 3 hours.
Candidate participant recruitment information is collected in an incremental fashion to permit the determination of which individuals meet the criteria for research participation. All interested candidates (estimate: 792) complete the Interest Response Form. A subset of individuals (estimate: 578) are then asked to complete Candidate Screening Questions. Those who complete the questions and are eligible are contacted for participation, with a goal of 156 participants annually.
Burden has been adjusted from the currently approved collection using the response/eligibility rates for the most recent experiment in this research. The table below shows completion numbers and rates for different stages of collection for that particular experiment. Notice that the last row of the table shows the number of respondents who completed the experiment and for which data were usable. Some respondents' data were identified as not usable after the conclusion of the experiment due to issues such as technical difficulties with the data acquisition equipment. As the final, usable, and verified data will be the basis on which research conclusions are drawn, this collection extension and revision requests an increase in the number of respondents in order to complete the research with enough usable data.
The
The
Upon review and determination that the candidate is eligible, that candidate is contacted by email or phone to schedule their participation. Individuals scheduled for study participation are asked to appear at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center in East Liberty, OH for the
Respondents complete the
Each respondent completes the
Table 2 shows the annual burden hours for the research.
The change reflected in this revision is a reduction in annual burden from 890 hours per year to 835 hours per year.
There is no cost to respondents for this information collection. Participants are compensated for their travel to and from the study site at the current internal revenue mileage rate, therefore there is no travel cost for participants.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Denial of petition.
Mercedes-Benz AG (MBAG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, (MBUSA) (collectively, “Mercedes-Benz” or “Petitioner”) have determined that certain model year (MY) 2020 Mercedes-Benz CLA 250 motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111,
Kamna Ralhan, Compliance Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-6443.
Mercedes-Benz has determined that certain MY 2020 Mercedes-Benz CLA 250 motor vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 111,
Notice of receipt of Mercedes-Benz's petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on September 18, 2020, in the
Mercedes-Benz reported approximately 155 MY 2020 Mercedes-Benz CLA 250 vehicles manufactured between June 19, 2019, and August 21, 2019, do not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111.
Mercedes-Benz explains that the noncompliance is that the rearview camera displays in the subject vehicles do not fully meet the field-of-view requirements outlined in paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 111. Specifically, the warning message text box obscures
Paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 111 includes the requirements relevant to this petition. When tested according to the procedures in paragraph S14.1, the rearview image must include: (a) A minimum of a 150-mm wide portion along the circumference of each test object located at positions F and G specified in S14.1.4; and (b) The full width and height of each test object located at positions A through E specified in paragraph S14.1.4 of FMVSS No. 111.
The following views and arguments presented in this section are the views and arguments provided by Mercedes-Benz and do not reflect the views of NHTSA. Mercedes-Benz described the subject noncompliance and contended that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Mercedes-Benz explains that subject vehicles' rearview camera visibility systems display a text box with an alert message when the vehicle is placed in reverse and throughout the backing maneuver. Mercedes-Benz states that this message is intended to remind drivers “to pay attention to their surroundings.” The alert message remains on the display until the vehicle is no longer in the reverse position.
When the alert message appears, there is a black border surrounding the text box that obscures approximately the topmost 10 percent of Test Object B. This 10 percent obstruction of the rear middle test object is not compliant with the “field of view” requirements given in S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 111. According to Mercedes-Benz, the remaining 90 percent of Test Object B appears on the display without issue. In its May 11, 2020, report, Mercedes-Benz adds that no other test objects are affected by the noncompliance and the rearview camera display otherwise functions as intended.
Mercedes-Benz states that the purpose of field of view requirement is “to ensure that persons located at the rear of the vehicle remain visible to the driver.” Mercedes-Benz contends that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the purpose of the field of view requirement is still fulfilled by the remaining 90 percent of the lower portion of the test object being visible.
Mercedes-Benz states that overall, FMVSS No. 111 is intended “to mitigate against the potential for accidents or injuries due to striking persons, including children, located at the rear of the vehicle.” Mercedes-Benz claims that when developing FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA “considered the safety benefits related to the use of overlays such as text-based alert messages, guidance markers, and other indicators on rear camera visibility systems during the development of the FMVSS No. 111 rulemaking” and identified specific concerns related to the use of overlays. Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA “carefully considered whether and how to regulate the use of overlays in order to mitigate against a specific type of concern, the potential for overlays to create blind spots in the rearview image that could obscure or mask small objects or persons at the rear of the vehicle, particularly children.
Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA ultimately “declined to mandate specific performance criteria related to the use of overlays, largely due to a lack of practical means of testing the wide variations of overlay use and design without additional research.” Mercedes-Benz states that NHTSA instead “considered the field of view requirements to have been met as long as they did not cover any of the required portions of the test objects if activated automatically or if the overlay was manually activated by the driver.” Mercedes-Benz adds that while declining to mandate specific performance requirements NHTSA stated that this “decision does not relieve manufacturers from designing the overlay system to provide a reasonable ability to see the required field of view.
Mercedes-Benz argues that the topmost 10 percent of Test Object B obscured by the subject noncompliance is “limited to the extreme edge of the test object.” Mercedes-Benz specifies that the height of the test object as shown on the display is 800 mm and the “uppermost portion of the test object is 150 mm.” Mercedes-Benz says that when the text box appears on the display, the border causing the noncompliance obscures “approximately half of the 150 mm strip of the text object, or 75 mm.” According to Mercedes-Benz, the rear camera visibility system “still operates to provide the driver an ability to fully and safely see the required field of view” despite the subject noncompliance. Mercedes-Benz adds that a driver would still be able to use the display to recognize if a person or child was present behind the vehicle.
Mercedes-Benz notes that it is not aware of any reports or complaints regarding the subject noncompliance.
Mercedes-Benz concluded by contending that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
Mercedes-Benz's complete petition and all supporting documents are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at:
NHTSA received one comment from the public. This comment was submitted by Pee Yaw who expressed the opinion that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential. The commenter expressed the view that this feature is a plus providing more information to drivers, and that the pop-up box only takes up a small portion of the screen.
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against which a recall would otherwise protect.
NHTSA has reviewed the Mercedes-Benz inconsequentiality petition and does not concur with the conclusion that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The petition is therefore denied.
NHTSA issued the Rear Visibility (FMVSS No. 111) final rule in 2014 to reduce the risk of devastating backover crashes involving vulnerable populations (including very young children) and to satisfy the mandate of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. The final rule established a required field of view with complete visibility of designated test objects for all passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and low-speed vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds. NHTSA anticipated the final rule would significantly reduce backover crashes involving children, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other pedestrians who currently have the highest risk associated with backover crashes. Specifically, the rule specified an area behind the vehicle which must be visible to the driver when the vehicle is placed into reverse and other related performance requirements.
The final rule established a minimum field of view of 10 feet by 20 feet behind the vehicle where the full width and height of test objects A through E must be observed (the test objects are 0.3 m wide and 0.8 m tall).
Mercedes-Benz concedes that NHTSA “considered the field of view requirements to have been met as long as [overlays] did not cover any of the required portions of the test objects if activated automatically or if the overlay was manually activated by the driver.” Mercedes-Benz acknowledges its overlay covers 10 percent of Test Object B, in violation of the quoted language. However, Mercedes-Benz argues this 10 percent is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because “the driver is still able to recognize a person or child present behind the vehicle.” Similarly, NHTSA received one comment in favor of granting the petition because the feature provides more information to drivers, and the pop-up box only takes up a small portion of the screen.
To the extent the text box covers a minimal area of the backup camera view, NHTSA disagrees with Mercedes and commenters that the obstruction is inconsequential to safety. NHTSA is concerned that, the text box overlay by covering 10 percent of the Test Object B reduces the rearview area covered for a driver to ascertain certain situations such as an approaching vehicle from a distance, children playing, and a person walking. Also, it would be difficult to ascertain in a situation if there is an uneven terrain. Not having a clear rear view on a hilly road or a road with turns and slopes would make it difficult in case one wants to use a backup camera view for a clear rear view. The agency notes that Test Object B is among the furthest objects from the vehicle making it possible for the driver to confuse far away objects especially those that would be obscured by the text box.
NHTSA finds that Mercedes-Benz has not met its burden of persuasion and disagrees with its assertion. Ultimately, Mercedes-Benz's noncompliant rearview image leads to a greater risk of backover crashes since it does not show the minimum required field of view during a backing maneuver and is consequential to motor vehicle safety. Therefore, NHTSA does not find that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Mercedes-Benz has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 111 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz's petition is hereby denied, and Mercedes-Benz is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by August 28, 2025.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should also be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Federal Insurance Office (FIO) within the Department of the Treasury invites the public to submit expressions of interest in serving as members of the Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms (ACRSM). Submissions must be received by FIO no later than August 29, 2025.
Annette Burris, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Room 1410 MT, Washington, DC 20220, at (771) 215-6900 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
The ACRSM is a federal advisory committee of insurance industry representatives established in 2015 to provide advice and recommendations to the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) with respect to (1) the creation and development of non-governmental, private market risk-sharing mechanisms for protection against losses arising from acts of terrorism; and (2) FIO's administration of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.
The ACRSM's membership is balanced to include a cross-section of members consisting of directors, officers, or other employees of insurers, reinsurers, and capital market participants that are representative of the affected sectors of the insurance industry, including commercial property insurance, commercial casualty insurance, reinsurance, and alternative risk transfer industries. More information regarding the ACRSM, including a list of its current members, prior recommendations to FIO, and its organizational documents, is available on the Treasury website.
Individuals interested in serving as ACRSM members should submit an expression of interest including their name, organization or affiliation, and contact information (employment address, telephone number, and email address). Submissions should also include a curriculum vitae and a statement describing the individual's interest in serving and willingness to work on the issues addressed by the ACRSM.
A small subset of ACRSM members may be required to adhere to the conflict-of-interest rules applicable to Special Government Employees as such employees are defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a). These rules include relevant provisions in 18 U.S.C. related to criminal activity, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635), and Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive Order 12731).
In accordance with Department of Treasury Directive 21-03, candidates for appointment to the ACRSM are subject to a clearance process, including fingerprinting, annual tax checks, and a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background check. All ACRSM candidates must agree to submit to these pre-appointment checks.
The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is August 29, 2025. Submissions may be sent by email to
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10., that a meeting for the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation (hereinafter the Committee) will be held virtually on Tuesday and Wednesday, August 26-27, 2025. The meeting will begin at 11:00 a.m. EST and adjourn at 3:30 p.m. EST on both days. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the rehabilitation needs of Veterans with disabilities and the administration of VA's rehabilitation programs.
On August 26-27, 2025, the Committee will receive briefings on various VA programs designed to enhance the rehabilitative potential of Veterans with disabilities. In addition, the Committee will discuss and explore potential recommendations to be included in the next annual report.
Members of the public may attend virtually using the following Microsoft Teams link by computer or mobile app at
As time is limited, individuals wishing to make public comments can contact
Members of the public may submit written statements (max. 2 pages) until Friday, August 22, 2025, for the Committee's review to Ms. Latrese Thompson, Designated Federal Officer, Veterans Benefits Administration (28), 1800 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, or at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from 8 Star Alaska, LLC (8 Star Alaska), a subsidiary of Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project in Cook Inlet, Alaska, over the course of 5 years (2026-2030). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS proposes regulations setting forth permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such marine mammal stocks (
Comments and information must be received no later than August 28, 2025.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
•
•
A copy of 8 Star Alaska's Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Kristy Jacobus, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
NMFS received a request from 8 Star Alaska requesting 5-year regulations and a Letter of Authorization (LOA) that would authorize take of marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment incidental to 8 Star Alaska's activities. No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized. Please see below for definitions of relevant terms and the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section for definitions of harassment.
The proposed rule, promulgated under the authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to as “mitigation”), and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.
As noted above, no serious injury or mortality is proposed to be authorized in this proposed rule. Relevant definitions of MMPA statutory and regulatory terms are included below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I, provide the legal basis for proposing and, if appropriate, issuing 5-year regulations and
The major provisions of this proposed rule include:
• Allowing NMFS to authorize, through an LOA, the take of small numbers of marine mammals by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment;
• No mortality or serious injury of any marine mammal is proposed to be authorized;
• Requiring NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) and delaying commencement of or shutting down select activities should a marine mammal be detected within identified clearance or shutdown zones to minimize the amount and severity of take;
• Requiring time/area closure for beluga whale during summer months in the western portion of Cook Inlet; and
• Requiring soft start for impact pile driving to allow marine mammals the opportunity to leave the area prior to beginning impact pile driving at full power.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
NMFS participated as a cooperating agency on the 2020 Alaska LNG Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was finalized on March 6, 2020, and is available at
Consistent with NEPA, applicable NOAA NEPA procedures, and the information and analysis contained in this proposed rule, NMFS has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule and any subsequent LOAs would not result in significant impacts that were not fully considered in the 2020 Alaska LNG Project EIS. As indicated in this proposed rule, 8 Star Alaska has made no substantial changes to the activities evaluated in the EIS, and NMFS is unaware of any significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns or their impacts. NMFS will make a final NEPA determination prior to a decision whether to issue a final rule and LOA.
This project is covered under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or “FAST-41.” FAST-41 includes a suite of provisions designed to expedite the environmental review for covered infrastructure projects, including enhanced interagency coordination as well as milestone tracking on the public-facing Permitting Dashboard. FAST-41 also places a 2-year limitations period on any judicial claim that challenges the validity of a Federal agency decision to issue or deny an authorization for a FAST-41 covered project. 42 U.S.C. 4370m-6(a)(1)(A).
8 Star Alaska's proposed project is listed on the permitting dashboard. Milestones and schedules related to the environmental review and permitting for the Alaska LNG Project can be found at
On December 5, 2024, NMFS received a request from 8 Star Alaska for regulations and a LOA to take marine mammals incidental to construction of LNG facilities in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Following NMFS' review of the application, 8 Star Alaska submitted a revised version on April 3, 2025, which was deemed adequate and complete. On April 8, 2025, NMFS published a notice of receipt (NOR) of application in the
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of 12 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment, and by Level A harassment for a subset of 3 of these species. Neither 8 Star Alaska nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from the specified activities and neither are proposed to be authorized.
NMFS previously promulgated regulations and issued an LOA to AGDC for the same work on September 15, 2020 (85 FR 59291, September 21, 2020), effective from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2025. However, no work has been conducted during the effective period of that LOA and none is planned prior to its expiration.
8 Star Alaska proposes to construct facilities to transport and offload LNG in Cook Inlet, Alaska, for export. Project activities would include the construction of a Marine Terminal comprised of a temporary Marine Terminal Material Offloading Facility (MOF) and a permanent Product Loading Facility (PLF) on the east side of Cook Inlet, near Nikiski; construction of a pipeline (referred to as the Mainline) across Cook Inlet; and construction of a Mainline MOF on the west side of Cook Inlet, north of Tyonek. The components of the proposed construction activities that have the potential to expose marine mammals to sound levels that could result in take are vibratory and impact pile driving of steel sheet piles and 24-, 48-, 60-, and 66-inch (61-, 122-, 152.4-, and 167.6-centimer [cm]) steel pipe piles, as well as the use of anchor handling tugs (AHTs).
Planned in-water work would occur over 5 years between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2030. The construction window is based on the ice-free working window, which is from approximately April 1 through October 31. Pile driving would occur during
The proposed construction activities would occur in Cook Inlet, Alaska. The Marine Terminal, consisting of the temporary marine terminal MOF and PLF, would be constructed adjacent to the proposed onshore liquefaction facility near Nikiski, Alaska. The Mainline would cross the Cook Inlet shoreline on the west side of Cook Inlet south of Beluga Landing, traverse Cook Inlet in a generally southward direction for approximately 26.7 miles (43 kilometers [km]), and cross the east Cook Inlet shoreline near Suneva Lake. An MOF (Mainline MOF) may be constructed on the west side of Cook Inlet near the existing Beluga Landing to support installation of the Cook Inlet shoreline crossing. See figure 1 for a map of 8 Star Alaska's action area (see 8 Star Alaska's application for color legends).
Construction of the Alaska LNG facilities would include construction of a Marine Terminal, comprised of a temporary marine terminal MOF and PLF; a Mainline MOF; and a pipeline (referred to as Mainline) crossing Cook Inlet. Noise generated by impact and vibratory pile driving would be likely to result in take of marine mammals. Additionally, we assume here that noise generated by AHTs conducting anchor handling may result in take of marine mammals.
The temporary Marine Terminal MOF would consist of a quay and two berths, which would be used during construction of the Liquefaction Facility to enable direct deliveries of equipment modules, bulk materials, construction equipment, and other cargo to minimize the transport of large and heavy loads over road infrastructure. See Figure 6 in 8 Star Alaska's application for visual depiction of the Marine Terminal MOF. Construction of the Temporary MOF is expected to occur in Years 1 and 2.
Quay—The quay would be constructed of an outer wall consisting of combi-wall (combination of sheet pile and 66-inch steel pipe piles), tied back to a sheet pile anchor wall, and 11 sheet pile coffer cells, comprised of sheet piles and 24-inch pipe piles, backfilled with granular materials. The 24-inch pipe piles would be removed once coffer cell installation is complete. All pile installation and removal would be conducted with vibratory methods. 8 Star Alaska expects to use two crews during the installation of piles for the combi-wall and coffer cells, and therefore concurrent pile driving is expected to occur during installation of these features. This could result in concurrent vibratory pile driving of two 66-inch sheet piles, 2 sheet piles, 2 24-inch pile piles, a 66-inch pipe pile with a sheet pile, and a 24-inch pipe pile with a sheet pile. Installation of the sheet pile anchor wall is not considered in this analysis because the anchor wall would be installed into fill and would not generate substantial underwater sound.
Berths—Berths at the Marine Terminal MOF would include one Lift-on/Lift-off (Lo-Lo) berth and one Roll-on/Roll-off (Ro-Ro) berth maintained at depths alongside of 32 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). The berths would be constructed of 24-inch and 48-inch pipe piles using an impact hammer.
The Marine Terminal MOF would be constructed using both land-based (from shore and subsequently from constructed portions of the Marine Terminal MOF) and marine construction methods.
Dredging would be conducted at the Marine Terminal MOF with hydraulic or mechanical dredgers. While marine mammals may behaviorally respond in some small degree to the noise generated by dredging operations, given the slow, predictable movements of these vessels, and absent any other contextual features that would cause enhanced concern, NMFS does not consider it likely that 8 Star Alaska's proposed dredging would result in the take of marine mammals.
The proposed PLF would be a permanent facility used to load LNG carriers for export. The PLF would consist of two loading platforms, two berths, a marine operations platform, and an access trestle that supports the piping that delivers LNG from shore. See figure 4 in 8 Star Alaska's application for a visual description. In-water construction for the PLF would occur in Years 3-5. Construction methods would include both overhead construction (conducted with equipment located on a cantilever bridge extending from shore) and marine construction (conducted with equipment located on barges/vessels). All pile driving for the PLF would be conducted with an impact hammer. See figures 3 through 5 in 8 Star Alaska's application for visual depiction of the PLF.
PLF Berth Loading Platforms—The two loading platforms, located at either end of the north-south portion of the trestle would be supported above the seafloor on steel-jacketed structures called quadropods, made of 48-inch steel pipe piles.
PLF Berth Breasting and Mooring Dolphins—Each berth would have four concrete pre-cast breasting dolphins and six concrete pre-cast mooring dolphins that would be supported over the seabed on quadropods, comprised of 48-inch and 60-inch steel pipe piles. A catwalk, supported on two-pile bents comprised of 60-inch steel pipe piles, would connect the mooring dolphins to the loading platforms.
Marine Operations Platform—The platform would be located along the east-west portion of the access trestle and would be supported above the seafloor on four-pile bents, comprised of 60-inch steel pipe piles.
Access Trestle—The access trestle would be T-shaped with a long east-west oriented section and a shorter north-south oriented section. The east-west portion would be supported on three-pile and four-pile bents, comprised of 60-inch steel pipe piles, and the north-south oriented portion would be supported on five-pile quadropods, comprised of 48-inch steel pipe piles.
A Mainline MOF may be required on the west side of Cook Inlet to support installation of the Cook Inlet shoreline crossing. The Mainline MOF would consist of a quay, space for tugs, and berths including a Lo-Lo berth for unloading pipe and construction material and Ro-Ro berth and ramp dedicated to Ro-Ro operations. Approximately 1,270 feet (387.1 meters [m]) of sheet pile would be installed with a combination of vibratory and impact methods for construction of the quay and Ro-Ro ramp, and a corresponding length of sheet pile would be installed as anchor wall. However, only 670 feet (204.2 m) of sheet pile would be installed in the water, as the remainder would be installed as anchor wall in fill material or in the intertidal area when the tide is out. Therefore, only the installation of these 670 feet (204.2 m) of sheet pile is likely to result in the take of marine mammals. Construction of the Mainline MOF is expected to occur in Year 2.
8 Star Alaska proposes to install a 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline that would cross Cook inlet from the west side of the inlet south of Beluga Landing in a generally southward direction to the east side of Cook Inlet near Suneva Lake. The pipe would be trenched into the seafloor and buried from the shoreline out to a water depth of approximately 35-45 feet (10.7-13.7 m) MLLW on both sides of the inlet, approximately 8,800 feet from the north landfall and 6,600 feet from the south landfall. Burial depth in these areas would be 3-6 feet (0.9-1.8 m). Seaward of these sections, the pipeline would be placed on the seafloor. The installation methods would vary depending on the distance from shore, as described below. Installation of the Mainline crossing of Cook Inlet would include AHTs engaged in anchor handling (described further below). Construction of the Mainline is expected to occur during Years 3 and 4.
Pre-installation surveys—High-resolution geophysical surveys would be conducted prior to pipeline construction in order to develop a detailed bathymetric profile. The acoustic survey equipment proposed for use includes:
• Single-beam echosounder operating at 200 kilohertz (kHz);
• Multi-beam echosounder operating at 200-400 kHz;
• Side-scan sonar system at 400-900 kHz; and
• Magnetometer, which does not emit underwater sound.
The echosounders and side-scan sonar operate at or above 200 kHz, which are above the range of marine mammals' hearing thresholds, and the magnetometer does not emit sound. Therefore, use of this equipment is not expected to result in take of marine
Nearshore Trenching, Pipelay, and Burial—In the nearshore portions of the route across Cook Inlet, the pipeline would be trenched and buried. The nearshore portion of the trench (extending from the shoreline to a transition water depth where a dredge vessel can be employed) would be constructed using amphibious or barge-based excavators. From the transition water depth to water depth of the −25 feet or −45 feet MLLW, 8 Star Alaska would use a dredge to excavate a trench for the pipeline. As described above, NMFS does not consider it likely that 8 Star Alaska's proposed dredging would result in the take of marine mammals.
Pipeline joints would be welded together onshore in 1,000 foot-long strings (pipe strings) and laid on the ground surface in an orientation that approximates the offshore alignment. 8 Star Alaska would anchor a pipe pull barge near the seaward end of the trench using AHTs. The barge would be used to pull the pipe strings from their onshore position into the trench. Given the transient and slow, predictable movement of barges, NMFS does not expect any potential for startle responses from individual marine mammals that may be in the vicinity. Similarly, with regard to the characteristics of noise output resulting from use of barges and other, similar industrial activities, NMFS generally assumes that the relative lack of variation in the signal and associated absence of high peak pressure or rapid rise time events (characteristics associated with impulsive and/or intermittent sound sources) significantly limits the likelihood of behavioral responses that might appropriately be considered take.
In addition to these general conclusions related to the physical and acoustic characteristics of the activity, NMFS considers contextual issues that may result in different, case-specific conclusions. For example, when considering relatively loud continuous noise sources, such as use of AHTs or tugging under load, NMFS evaluates the potential for exposure to result in take for sensitive species such as Cook Inlet beluga whales in important habitat is sufficient to justify a determination that some amount of take is likely. Following pipeline installation, the trench is expected to backfill naturally through the movement of seafloor sediments. If manual backfilling is required, the backfill would be placed by reversing the flow of the dredger used offshore or mechanically with the use of excavators.
Trenching, pipelay, and burial would be conducted 24 hours per day, seven days per week. 8 Star Alaska anticipates a pipelay rate of 2,000 (609.6 m) to 2,500 feet (762 m) per 24 hours. Anchor handling is only expected to occur during the initial anchoring of the pull barge, and therefore the AHTs are only expected to be used for a total of two days during nearshore pipelay, one day on the west coast near Beluga and one day on the east coast near Suneva Lake. We note here that AHT activities are not generally dissimilar from dredging, pipe-pulling, etc., in terms of the characteristics of noise output, although AHTs are assumed to be louder than these other similar activities. Given the slow, predictable, and generally straight path (or stationary nature) of tugs engaged in anchor handling activities, the likelihood of disrupting marine mammal behavioral patterns from tug use that would qualify as harassment under the MMPA is considered relatively low. Nevertheless, we have quantified the potential exposures from this activity, assumed that these exposures would equate to take, and analyzed the impacts of the assumed takes, which we propose for authorization. Anchor handling is the only activity assumed to result in take of marine mammals during the nearshore trenching, pipelay, and burial.
Offshore Pipeline Installation—Seaward of the trenched sections, the pipeline would be laid on the seafloor across Cook Inlet using conventional pipelay vessel methods. The pipelay vessel would likely employ 12 anchors to keep it positioned during pipelay and provide resistance as it is winched ahead 80 feet each time an additional 80-foot section of pipe is added/welded on the pipe string. 8 Star Alaska anticipates a pipelay rate of 2,000 to 2,500 feet (609.6-762 m) per 24 hours. 8 Star Alaska would use AHTs to reposition the anchors. Use of the AHTs could potentially result in take of marine mammals and is described in more detail below. Offshore pipelaying would be conducted for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 8 Star Alaska anticipates using AHTs about 25 percent of the time (
AHTs—8 Star Alaska would use AHTs and anchor systems to maintain the optimal stability and alignment of a specialized vessel, referred to as a pipelay barge, while laying pipeline on the seafloor. Pipeline activities utilizing pipelay barge methods include support from up to three AHTs that would repeatedly reposition the anchors, thereby maintaining proper position and permitting forward movement.
8 Star Alaska is unable to specify tugging characteristics at this time. However, based on specifications for other similar activities such as Hilcorp Alaska's LLC's Production Drilling Support Activities in Cook Inlet (89 FR 79529; September 30, 2024) and Furie Operating Alaska, LLC Natural Gas Activities in Cook Inlet (89 FR 77836; September 24, 2024), NMFS anticipates that the AHTs would be rated between 4,000 horsepower (hp) and 8,000 hp. Potential tug power output during anchor handling is discussed in further detail in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section.
A summary of pile driving activities for the Alaska LNG facilities construction is provided in table 2, and a summary of the use of AHTs for pipelaying is provided in table 3.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 4 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 4 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2024 SARs) and are available online at:
As indicated above, all 12 species (with 15 managed stocks) in table 4 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur.
In addition, the northern sea otter may be found in Cook Inlet, Alaska. However, northern sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.
The stock structure for gray whales in the Pacific has been studied for a number of years and remains uncertain as of the most recent draft 2024 Pacific SARs (Carretta
An Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for gray whales along the West Coast and in Alaska occurred from December 17, 2018, through November 9, 2023. During that time 690 gray whales stranded in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, 146 of which stranded off the coast of Alaska. The investigative team concluded that the preliminary cause of the UME was localized ecosystem changes in the whale's Subarctic and Arctic feeding areas that led to changes in food, malnutrition, decreased birth rates, and increased mortality (see
Gray whales occur infrequently in Cook Inlet, but may be seasonally present during spring and fall in the lower inlet (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), 2022). Migrating gray whales pass through the lower inlet during their spring and fall migrations to and from their primary summer feeding areas in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (Swartz, 2018, Silber
In 2020, during the aforementioned UME, a young male gray whale was stranded in the Twentymile River near Girdwood for over a week before swimming back into Turnagain Arm. The whale did not survive and was found dead in west Cook Inlet later that month (NMFS, 2020). One gray whale was sighted in Knik Arm near the Port of Alaska (POA) in Anchorage in upper Cook Inlet in May of 2020 during observations conducted during construction of the Petroleum and Cement Terminal project (61 North Environmental, 2021). The sighting occurred less than a week before the reports of the gray whale stranding in the Twentymile River and was likely the same animal. In 2021, one small gray whale was sighted in Knik Arm near Ship Creek, south of the POA (61 North Environmental, 2022a). Although some sightings have been documented in the middle and upper Inlet, the gray whale range typically only extends into the lower Cook Inlet region.
The most comprehensive photo-identification data available suggest that approximately 89 percent of all humpback whales in the Gulf of Alaska are from the Hawaii stock, 11 percent are from the Mexico stock, and less than 1 percent are from the Western North Pacific stock (Wade, 2021). Individuals from different stocks are known to intermix in feeding grounds. There is no designated critical habitat for humpback whales in or near the area where the specified activity is planned to occur (86 FR 21082, April 21, 2021), nor does the project overlap with any known biologically important areas (Wild
Humpback whales are encountered regularly in lower Cook Inlet and occasionally in mid-Cook Inlet; sightings are rare in upper Cook Inlet. Eighty-three groups containing an estimated 187 humpbacks were sighted during Cook Inlet beluga whale aerial surveys conducted by NMFS from 1994 to 2012 (Shelden
No estimates have been made for the number of minke whales in the entire North Pacific (Young
Minke whales are most abundant in the Gulf of Alaska during summer and occupy localized feeding areas (Zerbini
Fin whales' range extends into lower Cook Inlet; however, sightings are infrequent, and they are mostly spotted near the Inlet's entrance. Fin whales are usually observed as individuals traveling alone, although they are sometimes observed in small groups. From 2000 to 2022, 10 sightings of 26 estimated individual fin whales were observed in lower Cook Inlet during NMFS aerial surveys (Shelden
Five stocks of beluga whales are recognized in Alaska: the Beaufort Sea stock, eastern Chukchi Sea stock,
In June 2023, NMFS released an updated abundance estimate for CIBWs in Alaska that incorporates aerial survey data from June 2021 and 2022 and accounted for visibility bias (Goetz
Threats that have the potential to impact this stock and its habitat include the following: changes in prey availability due to natural environmental variability, ocean acidification, and commercial fisheries; climatic changes affecting habitat; predation by killer whales; contaminants; noise; ship strikes; waste management; urban runoff; construction projects; and physical habitat modifications that may occur as Cook Inlet becomes increasingly urbanized (Moore
In 2010, a recovery team, consisting of a science panel and stakeholder panel, began meeting to develop a recovery plan for the CIBW. The final recovery plan was published in the
In its recovery plan (82 FR 1325, January 5, 2017), NMFS identified several potential threats to CIBWs, including: (1) high concern: catastrophic events (
On April 11, 2011, NMFS designated two areas of critical habitat for CIBW (76 FR 20179). The designation includes 7,800 square kilometers (km
The designation identified the following Primary Constituent Elements, essential features important to the conservation of the CIBW:
(1) Intertidal and subtidal waters of Cook Inlet with depths of less than 9 m Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) and within 8 km of high- and medium-flow anadromous fish streams;
(2) Primary prey species, including four of the five species of Pacific salmon (chum (
(3) The absence of toxins or other agents of a type or amount harmful to CIBWs;
(4) Unrestricted passage within or between the critical habitat areas; and
(5) The absence of in-water noise at levels resulting in the abandonment of habitat by CIBWs.
Wild
Generally, female beluga whales reach sexual maturity at 9 to 12 years old, while males reach maturity later (O'Corry‐Crowe, 2009); however, this can vary between populations. For example, in Greenland, males in a population of beluga whales were found to reach sexual maturity at 6 to 7 years of age and females at 4 to 7 years (Heide-Jørgensen and Teilmann, 1994). Suydam (2009) estimated that 50 percent of females were sexually mature at age 8.25 and the average age at first birth was 8.27 years for belugas sampled near Point Lay. Mating behavior in beluga whales typically occurs between February and June, peaking in March (Burns and Seaman, 1986, Suydam, 2009). In the Chukchi Sea, the gestation period of beluga whales was determined to be 14.9 months, with a calving interval of 2 to 3 years and a pregnancy rate of 0.41, declining after 25 years of age (Suydam, 2009). Calves are born between mid-June and mid-July and typically remain with the mother for up to 2 years of age (Suydam, 2009).
CIBWs feed on a wide variety of prey species, particularly those that are seasonally abundant. From late spring through summer, most CIBW stomachs sampled contained salmon, which corresponded to the timing of fish runs in the area. Anadromous smolt and adult fish aggregate at river mouths and adjacent intertidal mudflats (Calkins, 1989). All five Pacific salmon species (
The nutritional quality of Chinook salmon in particular is unparalleled, with an energy content four times greater than that of a Coho salmon. It is suggested the decline of the Chinook salmon population has left a nutritional void in the diet of the CIBWs that no other prey species can fill in terms of quality or quantity (Norman
In fall, as anadromous fish runs begin to decline, CIBWs return to consume fish species (cod and bottom fish) found in nearshore bays and estuaries. Stomach samples from CIBWs are not available for winter (December through March), although dive data from CIBWs tagged with satellite transmitters suggest that they feed in deeper waters during winter (Hobbs
The CIBW stock remains within Cook Inlet throughout the year, showing only small seasonal shifts in distribution (Goetz
During spring and summer, CIBWs generally aggregate near the warmer waters of river mouths along the northern shores of middle and upper Cook Inlet where prey availability is high and predator occurrence is low (Moore
Data from tagged whales (14 tags deployed July 2000 through March 2003) show that CIBWs use upper Cook Inlet intensively between summer and late autumn (Hobbs et al., 2005). CIBWs tagged with satellite transmitters continue to use Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, and Chickaloon Bay as late as October, but some range into lower Cook Inlet to Chinitna Bay, Tuxedni Bay, and Trading Bay (McArthur River) in fall (Hobbs
The NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) has conducted long-term passive acoustic monitoring demonstrating seasonal shifts in CIBW concentrations throughout Cook Inlet. Castellote
Goetz
CIBWs are believed to mostly calve in the summer, and breed between late spring and early summer (NMFS, 2016), primarily in upper Cook Inlet. The first neonates encountered during each field season from 2005 through 2015 were always seen in the Susitna River Delta in July. The photographic identification team's documentation of the dates of the first neonate of each year indicate that calving begins in mid-late July/early August, generally coinciding with the observed timing of annual maximum group size. Probable mating behavior of CIBWs was observed in April and May of 2014 in Trading Bay. Young CIBWs are nursed for 2 years and may continue to associate with their mothers for a considerable time thereafter (Colbeck
During Apache's seismic test program in 2011 along the west coast of Redoubt Bay, lower Cook Inlet, a total of 33 CIBWs were sighted during the survey (Lomac-MacNair
Along the west coast of North America, seasonal and year-round occurrence of killer whales has been noted along the entire Alaska coast (Braham and Dahlheim, 1982), in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways (Bigg
Killer whales have been sighted near Homer and Port Graham in lower Cook Inlet (Shelden
During the 2015 SAExploration seismic program near the North Foreland, two killer whales were observed (Kendall
The North Pacific stock of Pacific white-sided dolphin is common in the Gulf of Alaska's pelagic waters and Alaska's nearshore areas, British Columbia, and Washington Ferrero and Walker, 1996, as cited in Muto
Harbor porpoises in Cook Inlet are assumed to be members of the Gulf of Alaska stock (Young
Harbor porpoises occur throughout Cook Inlet, with passive acoustic detections being more prevalent in lower Cook Inlet. Although harbor porpoises have been frequently observed during aerial surveys in Cook Inlet (Shelden
An increase in harbor porpoise sightings in upper Cook Inlet was observed over recent decades (
During Apache's 2012 seismic program in middle Cook Inlet, 137 groups of harbor porpoises comprising 190 individuals were documented between May and August (Lomac-MacNair
Dall's porpoises in Alaska are of the Alaska stock. This species can be found in offshore, inshore, and nearshore habitat. The most recently updated SAR for the Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise (Muto
The Dall's porpoise range in Alaska includes lower Cook Inlet, but very few sightings have been reported in upper Cook Inlet. Observations have been documented near Kachemak Bay and Anchor Point (Owl Ridge, 2014; BOEM, 2015). Shelden
Two DPSs of Steller sea lion occur in Alaska: the western DPS and the eastern DPS. The western DPS includes animals that occur west of Cape Suckling, Alaska, and therefore includes individuals within the project area. The western DPS was listed under the ESA as threatened in 1990 (55 FR 49204, November 26, 1990), and its continued population decline resulted in a change in listing status to endangered in 1997 (62 FR 24345, May 5, 1997). Since 2000, studies indicate that the population east of Samalga Pass (
There is uncertainty regarding threats currently impeding the recovery of Steller sea lions, particularly in the Aleutian Islands. Many factors have been suggested as causes of the steep decline in abundance of western Steller sea lions observed in the 1980s, including competitive effects of fishing, environmental change, disease, contaminants, killer whale predation, incidental take, and illegal and legal shooting (Atkinson
NMFS designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions on August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269), including portions of the southern reaches of lower Cook Inlet. The critical habitat designation for the Western DPS was determined to include a 37-km (20-nautical mile) buffer around all major haul-outs and rookeries, and associated terrestrial, atmospheric, and aquatic zones, plus three large offshore foraging areas, none of which occurs in the project area. There is no designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions in the mid- or upper inlet, nor is there habitat of particular importance for Steller sea lions in the project area. Rookeries and haul out sites in lower Cook Inlet include those near the mouth of the inlet, which are approximately 56 km or more south of the closest action area.
Most Steller sea lions in Cook Inlet occur south of Anchor Point on the east side of lower Cook Inlet, with concentrations near haulout sites at Shaw Island and Elizabeth Island and by Chinitna Bay and Iniskin Bay on the west side (Rugh
Several surveys and monitoring programs have documented Steller sea lions throughout Cook Inlet, including in upper Cook Inlet in 2012 (Lomac-MacNair
Harbor seals in the proposed project area are of the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock, which ranges from the southwest tip of
Harbor seals inhabit the coastal and estuarine waters of Cook Inlet and occur in both upper and lower Cook Inlet throughout most of the year (Boveng
The results of past and recent satellite tagging studies in Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, Kodiak Island, and Cook Inlet are also consistent with the conclusion that harbor seals are non-migratory (Lowry
Recent research on satellite-tagged harbor seals observed several movement patterns within Cook Inlet (Boveng
Harbor seals have been sighted in Cook Inlet during every year of the aerial surveys conducted by NMFS and during recent mitigation and monitoring programs in lower, middle, and upper Cook Inlet (61N Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b, and 2022c; Fairweather Science, 2020; Kendall
Few observations of California sea lions have been reported in Alaska, and most observations have been limited to solitary individuals, typically males that are known to migrate long distances. Occasionally, California sea lions occur in small groups of two or more, usually associated with Steller sea lions at their haul outs and rookeries (Maniscalco
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (Richardson
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many sources both near and far. The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
The proposed project includes impact and vibratory pile driving and use of AHTs to handle anchors during pipelaying. Impact hammers typically operate by repeatedly dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is impulsive, characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory pile driving produces non-impulsive sound. Non-impulsive sounds typically do not have the high peak sound pressure with rapid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 1995, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1998, NMFS, 2024, ANSI, 2005). Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized piles (Oestman
Unlike discrete noise sources with known potential to harass marine mammals (
The likely or possible impacts of 8 Star Alaska's proposed activity on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Acoustic stressors would include effects of heavy equipment operation during pile installation and AHTs engaged in anchor handling during pipelaying.
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and AHTs is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from 8 Star Alaska's specified activity. Animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall
NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of TS is customarily expressed in dB. TS can be permanent or temporary. As described by NMFS (2024), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
NMFS defines auditory injury as “damage to the inner ear that can result in destruction of tissue . . . which may or may not result in PTS” (NMFS, 2024). NMFS defines PTS as a permanent irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024). PTS does not generally affect more than a limited frequency range, and an animal that has incurred PTS has incurred some level of hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; typically, animals with PTS are not functionally deaf (Au and Hastings, 2008, Finneran, 2016). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ahroon
NMFS defines TTS as a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see Southall
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall
The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity (
Nachtigall
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there is no PTS data for cetaceans. However, such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several dB above that inducing mild TTS (
8 Star Alaska proposes to conduct vibratory and impact pile driving activities and use AHTs to manage anchors during pipelaying. There would likely be pauses in activities during the day. Given these pauses and the fact that many marine mammals are likely to be moving through the ensonified area and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.
An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (Holberton
In consideration of the range of potential effects (AUD INJ to behavioral disturbance), we consider the potential exposure scenarios and context in which species would be exposed to pile driving and AHT noise. CIBWs may be present in low numbers during the work; therefore, some individuals may be reasonably expected to be exposed to elevated sound levels, including briefly those that exceed the Level B harassment threshold for continuous or impulsive noise. However, CIBWs would be expected to be transiting through the area, given this work is proposed primarily in middle Cook Inlet (as described in the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section), thereby limiting exposure duration, as belugas in the area would be expected to be headed to or from the concentrated foraging areas farther north near the Susitna Delta and Knik and Turnigan Arms. Similarly, humpback whales, fin whales, minke whales, gray whales, killer whales, California sea lion, and Steller sea lions would not be expected to remain in the area of the AHTs. Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoise, and harbor seal have been sighted with more regularity than many other species during oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet, but due to the transitory nature of these species, they would be unlikely to remain at any particular site for the full duration of the noise-producing activity. In fact, during Hilcorp's jack-up rig-based monitoring efforts in 2023, only one Dall's porpoise, two harbor seals, and one harbor porpoise were observed across four different sightings, and observations only lasted 1 to 5 minutes (Horsley and Larson, 2023). Because of this and the relatively low-intensity source levels, the likelihood of AUD INJ over the course of the AHT activities is considered discountable. Harbor seals may linger or haul-out in the area, but they are not known to do so in any large number or for extended periods of time. Here we find there would be a small potential for TTS during the use of AHTs for anchor handling but again, AUD INJ would not be likely due to the nature of the activity. Potential for AUD INJ and TTS due to pile driving is discussed further in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section.
Given most marine mammals would likely be transiting through the area, exposure would be expected to be brief but, in combination with the actual presence of the AHTs and pile driving, could result in animals shifting pathways around the work site (
While in some cases marine mammals have exhibited little to no obviously detectable response to certain common or routine industrialized activity (Cornick and Pinney, 2011), we conservatively assume here that exposure to received levels of sound above the Level B harassment threshold during AHT anchor-handling operations, in conjunction with the nature of AHT operations (
Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (
Pinnipeds that occur near the project site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving, depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.
There are no known pinniped haulouts near the noise producing project components. Therefore, it is unlikely that pinnipeds would be taken by exposure to in-air noise during construction. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source. However, these animals would likely previously have been “taken” because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are generally larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, we are not proposing to authorize incidental take solely from exposure to airborne sound for pinnipeds, and airborne sound is not discussed further.
8 Star Alaska's proposed activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by increasing in-water sound pressure levels and, for pile driving, slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area. Elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify the project areas where both fishes and mammals occur and could affect foraging success.
The total seafloor area likely impacted by the pile driving associated with the project would be relatively small compared to the available habitat in Cook Inlet. Avoidance by potential prey (
Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species (
Fishes utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning (Fay, 2009, Zelick
Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fishes and fish mortality (Popper
For pile driving, the most likely impact to fishes at the project site would be temporary avoidance of the area, although alarmed responses, including an increase in swimming speed and changes in ventilation and heart rate, could occur. The duration of fish avoidance of this area or an alarm response after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated. In relation to AHT activities, fish have been observed to react when engine and propeller sounds exceed a certain level (Ona and Godø, 1990, Ona, 1988, Olsen, 1983). Avoidance reactions have been observed in fish, including cod and herring, when vessel sound levels were 110 to 130 dB re 1 μPa root-mean-squared (RMS) (Ona and Godø, 1990, Nakken, 1992, Olsen, 1979, Ona and Toresen, 1988). Vessel sound source levels in the audible range for fish are typically 150 to 170 dB re 1 μPa per Hz (Richardson et al., 1995). The AHTs used during the specified activity could be expected to produce levels in this range when in transit. However, much of the tugging would be mobile during anchor handling, and the tugging noise that occurs during anchor handling would be temporary, similar to pile driving. Therefore, based upon the reports in the literature and the predicted sound levels from these vessels, some temporary avoidance by fish in the immediate area may occur.
In addition to fish, prey sources such as marine invertebrates could potentially be impacted by noise stressors as a result of the proposed activities. However, most marine invertebrates' ability to sense sounds is limited. Invertebrates appear to be able to detect sounds (Pumphrey, 1950, Frings and Frings, 1967) and are most sensitive to low-frequency sounds (Packard
Cephalopods have a specialized sensory organ inside the head called a statocyst that may help an animal determine its position in space (orientation) and maintain balance (Budelmann, 1992). Packard
With regard to potential impacts on zooplankton, McCauley
Notably, a more recent study produced results inconsistent with those of McCauley
In summary, given the relatively small areas potentially affected, the short duration of sound associated with individual pile driving events, and the temporary nature of the use of AHTs for anchor handling activities, any adverse effects from 8 Star Alaska's activities on any prey habitat or prey populations would be expected to be minor and temporary. The most likely impact to fishes at the project site would be temporary avoidance of the area. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. Thus, we conclude that the specified activities would not be likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization under the rule, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Proposed takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as exposure to sound resulting from use of the acoustic sources (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will likely be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of AUD INJ; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). We note that the criteria for AUD INJ, as well as the names of two hearing groups, have been recently updated (NMFS, 2024) as reflected below in the Level A harassment section.
8 Star Alaska's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving and AHTs engaged in anchor handling) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable.
The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The thresholds are provided in table 6 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional noise from pile driving and AHTs engaging in anchor handling from the proposed project.
8 Star Alaska proposes to conduct vibratory pile installation and removal and impact pile installation. Source levels for these activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimension of piles available in the literature. Source levels for each pile size and activity are presented in table 7. Source levels for vibratory installation and removal of piles of the same diameter are assumed to be the same.
8 Star Alaska proposes to conduct concurrent pile driving during construction of the combi-wall and coffer cells in the Marine Terminal MOF. When two noise sources have overlapping sound fields, the sources are considered additive and combined using the rules of dB addition. For addition of two concurrent sources, the difference between the two sound source levels is calculated, and if that difference is between 0 and 1 dB, 3 dB are added to the higher sound source levels; if the difference is between 2 and 3 dB, 2 dB are added to the highest sound source levels; if the difference is between 4 and 9 dB, 1 db is added to the highest sound source levels; and with differences of 10 or more dB, there is no addition. For two concurrent sources of different type (
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured transmission loss, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the transmission loss coefficient in the above formula. Project and site-specific transmission loss data for 8 Star Alaska's project area in Cook Inlet are not available; therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is used to determine the distances to the Level A and Level B harassment thresholds for all pile driving. All Level B harassment isopleths are reported in table 10. However, as discussed in the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section, 8 Star Alaska would conduct SSV for pile driving. Following the analysis of SSV results, 8 Star Alaska may propose revised estimated Level A and Level B harassment zones (for the purpose of monitoring and reporting) and adjusted shutdown zones accordingly for NMFS review and approval.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources such as impact and vibratory pile driving and AHTs engaged in anchor handling, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to incur AUD INJ. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool are provided in table 9, and the resulting estimated isopleths are reported in table 10.
Except for Level B harassment areas of ensonification for the single hammer vibratory installation of 66-inch steel pipe pile, the concurrent vibratory installation of two 66-inch piles, and the concurrent vibratory installation of a 66-inch steel pipe pile with a sheet pile, estimated areas of ensonification were calculated for pile driving using the formula of
NMFS used the following formula to estimate the area of ensonification for AHTs engaged in anchor handling, where distance traveled per day is the linear distance that the AHTs would be expected to travel over the course of a day, and r is the radial distance of the Level B harassment isopleth (3.85 km). 8 Star Alaska estimates the pipelay rate to be 2,500 feet/day (0.762 km/day), so 0.762 km was used as the distance traveled per day.
Level A harassment zones are typically smaller than Level B harassment zones. However, in some cases, the calculated Level A harassment isopleth is greater than the calculated Level B harassment isopleth. Calculation of Level A harassment isopleths include a duration component, which in the case of impact pile driving, is estimated through the total number of daily strikes and the associated pulse duration. For a stationary sound source, we assume here that an animal is exposed to all of the strikes expected within a 24-hour period. Calculation of
8 Star Alaska intends to use AHTs to position a pipelaying barge in order to install the pipe on the seafloor for the Mainline across Cook Inlet. For the nearshore pipelay, planned for Year 3, an AHT would engage in anchor handling to moor a pull barge, and is expected to be used for two days of work, one day on the west coast near Beluga and one day on the east coast near Suneva Lake. For offshore pipelay, AHTs would be engaged in anchor handling to repeatedly position the barge during the duration of pipelay. Consistent with other tug activities, including those for tugs towing a jack-up rig (Furie Operating Alaska, LLC Natural Gas Activities, 89 FR 77836, September 24, 2024; Hilcorp Alaska, LLC, 89 FR 79529, September 30, 2024), NMFS anticipates that the AHTs would operate at approximately 50 percent power during anchor handling activities.
Because of the similarities to tugging activities planned by Hilcorp in Cook Inlet (89 FR 79529, September 30, 2024), NMFS determined it appropriate to adopt analysis provided for those activities for 8 Star Alaska's planned tugging activities. In addition, we refer here to an existing literature review of available source level data for tugs under load in varying power output scenarios (87 FR 27597, May 9, 2022). Please see that notice for the detailed analysis. While that analysis is for tugs under load towing a jack-up rig, NMFS expects the AHT power output for the proposed anchor handling is to be consistent with that assumed for tugs towing a jack-up rig (Furie Operating Alaska, LLC Natural Gas Activities, 89 FR 77836, September 24, 2024; Hilcorp Alaska, LLC, 89 FR 79529, September 30, 2024), and therefore, NMFS determined that this analysis represents the best scientific evidence available for considering the appropriate source level proxy for 8 Star Alaska's proposed AHT use during anchor handling.
In addition to the literature review referenced above, which indicates that a source level of 180 dB for a single AHT would be appropriate, we also consider other relevant information to adequately consider 8 Star Alaska's planned use of three AHTs to handle anchors. If all three tugs were operating simultaneously at 180 dB RMS, the overall source emission levels would be expected to increase by approximately 5 dB when logarithmically adding the sources (
As noted previously, NMFS determined that Level A harassment would not be a reasonably likely outcome of the use of AHTs. In order to characterize the extent of the Level A harassment isopleths to provide additional quantitative support for this determination, NMFS used the NMFS user spreadsheet to calculate Level A harassment zones for each hearing group for AHTs conducting anchor handling. NMFS used Tab A (Non-Impulse-Stat-Cont) in the spreadsheet and used a WFA of 2, a 6 hour duration of sound production within a 24 hour period, and a propagation loss coefficient of 18.129. Weston and SLR (2022) determined the average 120 dB isopleth was 3,850 meters for a continuous noise source of 185 dB rms SPL across 25 locations in middle Cook Inlet. The coefficient is calculated as (185 dB−120 dB)/Log10(3850/1) = 18.129 dB per decade.)). Estimated Level A and Level B harassment isopleths for AHTs engaged in anchor handling are reported in table 12.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations.
8 Star Alaska requested take of humpback whale, killer whale, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, and harbor seal. In addition to those species, NMFS determined that minke whale, gray whale, fin whale, Dall's porpoise, Pacific white-sided dolphin, Steller sea lion, and California sea lion are likely to occur in the project area during 8 Star Alaska's activities and, accordingly, proposes to authorize take for these species.
Densities for marine mammals in Cook Inlet were derived from NMFS AFSC's Marine Mammal Laboratory (MML) aerial surveys, typically flown in June, from 2000 to 2022 (Rugh
CIBW densities estimated from the AFSC surveys across regions are low; however, there is a known effect of seasonality on their distribution. Thus, densities derived directly from these summer surveys might underestimate the density of CIBWs in lower Cook Inlet at other ice-free times of the year. Therefore, NMFS used the Goetz
Although data exists for Steller sea lions and fin whales in Cook Inlet from AFSC aerial surveys, this data is based on sightings of Steller sea lions and fin whales that were mostly observed in lower Cook Inlet and is not representative of middle Cook Inlet, where 8 Star Alaska proposes to conduct construction. Therefore, in order to calculate take of these species, NMFS proposes to use marine mammal occurrence.
For Steller sea lions, NMFS proposes to use monitoring data from the Port of Alaska (POA) in Anchorage, as these animals would be expected to pass through middle Cook Inlet and therefore be observed in 8 Star Alaska's Project Area. In 2020-2022 and 2024 (61 North Environmental, 2021, 2022a, 2022b, 2025, Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022), the maximum number of Steller sea lions observed at POA was nine animals, eight during Petroleum and Cement Terminal (PCT) observations (61 North Environmental, 2022a) and one during NMFS 2021 monitoring effort (Easley-Appleyard and Leonard, 2022). Therefore, NMFS anticipates that up to nine Steller sea lions may occur in the project area per year during the course of 8 Star Alaska's proposed project.
During seismic surveys conducted in 2019 by Hilcorp in the lower Cook Inlet, fin whales were recorded in groups ranging in size from one to 15 individuals (Fairweather, 2020). During the NMFS aerial surveys in Cook Inlet from 2000 to 2018, 10 sightings of 26 estimated individual fin whales in lower Cook Inlet were observed (Shelden
No density estimates are available for Pacific white-sided dolphins and California sea lions, as they are so infrequently sighted. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize take of these species based on group number (see table 14).
Due to the paucity of data of Pacific white-sided dolphins in this region, there is no available density for Pacific white-sided dolphins. They are considered rare in most of Cook Inlet, including in the lower entrance, but their presence was documented in Iniskin Bay and mid-inlet through passive acoustic recorders in 2019 (Castellote
While California sea lions are uncommon in Cook Inlet, two were seen during the 2012 Apache seismic survey in Cook Inlet (Lomac-MacNair
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
To estimate take by Level B harassment for all species except for fin whale, Pacific white-sided dolphin, California sea lion, and Steller sea lion, 8 Star Alaska multiplied the area (km
For species where calculated take by Level B harassment was less than the average group size for that species, NMFS rounded up the take estimate to the anticipated group size as displayed in table 15 and described below.
During Apache's 2012 seismic program, nine sightings of a total of nine gray whales were observed in June and July (Lomac-MacNair
During annual aerial surveys conducted in Cook Inlet from 2000 to 2016, humpback group sizes ranged from one to 12 individuals, with most groups comprised of 1 to 3 individuals (Shelden
Groups of up to three minke whales have been recorded in recent years, including one group of three southeast of Kalgin Island (Lomac-MacNair
Killer whale pods typically consist of a few to 20 or more animals (NMFS, 2025b). During seismic surveys conducted in 2019 by Hilcorp in lower Cook Inlet, 21 killer whales were observed. Although also observed as single individuals, killer whales were recorded during this survey in groups ranging in size from two to five individuals (Fairweather Science, 2020). One killer whale group of two individuals was observed during the 2015 SAExploration seismic program near the North Foreland (Kendall and Cornick, 2015). Based on recent documented sightings, observed group sizes, and the established presence of killer whales in Cook Inlet, NMFS is proposing to authorize 10 takes (2 groups of 5 animals, the upper end of recently recorded group size) by Level B harassment for killer whales for years 2-5.
The 2018 MML aerial survey (Shelden and Wade 2019) estimated a median group size of approximately 11 beluga whales, although group sizes were highly variable (2 to 147 whales) as was the case in previous survey years (Boyd
Dall's porpoises are usually found in groups averaging between 2 and 12 individuals (NMFS, 2025a). During seismic surveys conducted in 2019 by Hilcorp in lower Cook Inlet, Dall's porpoises were recorded in groups ranging from two to seven individuals (Fairweather Science, 2020). The 2012 Apache survey recorded two groups of three individual Dall's porpoises (Lomac-MacNair
8 Star Alaska proposes to shut down at the Level A harassment isopleth for all vibratory pile driving activities. The largest Level A harassment isopleth during vibratory pile driving is 181 m, and NMFS anticipates that 8 Star Alaska would be able to adequately monitor these zones and shutdown appropriately. NMFS, therefore, does not expect and does not propose to authorize Level A harassment due to vibratory pile driving for any species. As discussed in the
To estimate take by Level A harassment from impact pile driving, 8 Star Alaska multiplied the area (km
When attributing take to respective humpback whale stocks for each year, NMFS assumed that 89 percent of calculated take would be from the Hawai'i stock, 10.7 percent would be from the Mexico-North Pacific stock, and 0.3 percent would be from the Western North Pacific stock, as described in Wade (2021) (see table 17). Although the number calculated for the Western North Pacific stock is less than 0.5 animals, NMFS is conservatively attributing one take by Level B harassment to the Western North Pacific stock of the humpback whale.
For species for which take by Level A harassment is anticipated, those estimated takes by Level A harassment were subtracted from the estimated takes by Level B harassment to avoid double-counting the same exposures as both Level A and Level B harassment. Adjustments are reflected in table 17.
To inform both the negligible impact analysis and the small numbers determination, NMFS assesses the maximum number of takes of marine mammals that could occur within any given year. In this calculation, the maximum proposed number of Level A harassment takes in any one year is summed with the maximum proposed number of Level B harassment takes in any one year for each species to yield the highest number of estimated take that could occur in any year (table 18) for each stock. Table 18 also depicts the number of takes proposed relative to the abundance of each stock.
In order to promulgate a rulemaking under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on operations.
8 Star Alaska would establish shutdown zones for all pile driving and removal activities. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group (see table 19). A minimum shutdown zone of 10 m would be required for all in-water construction activities to avoid physical interaction with marine mammals. Activity-specific shutdown zones are based upon the estimated Level A harassment zones and distances at which 8 Star Alaska expects PSOs would be able to observe the relevant species, with the exception of CIBW.
For CIBWs, 8 Star Alaska would shut down at the estimated Level B harassment isopleth, except when that isopleth is farther than the PSOs can observe. 8 Star Alaska expects that PSOs could observe beluga whales up to 2-3 km under typical conditions. When shutdown zones are larger than the distance that PSOs would be able to observe, 8 Star Alaska would be expected to shut down if a beluga whale was observed at any distance.
Pile driving would be halted upon observation of a marine mammal entering or within the shutdown zone. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily left and has been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone for 30 minutes (large whales and beluga whales) or 15 minutes (pinnipeds and other cetaceans) without re-detection of the animal. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the shutdown zones would be cleared again for 30 minutes prior to reinitiating pile driving. A determination that the pile driving shutdown zone is clear must be made during a period of good visibility.
If a PSO(s) can no longer effectively monitor the entirety of the corresponding shutdown zone during impact pile driving, or at least 2 km during vibratory pile driving, due to environmental conditions (
If a species for which authorization has not been granted or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes have been reached is observed approaching, entering, or within the corresponding zone, in-water work would be delayed (if during pre-clearance) or shut down (except for AHTs engaged in anchor handling). Activities would not resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown or clearance zone indicated in tables 19 and 20 for 30 minutes (for large whales and beluga whales) or 15 minutes (for pinnipeds and other cetaceans) without re-detection of the animal.
If a shutdown procedure should be initiated but human safety is at risk, as determined by the best professional judgment of the vessel operator or project engineer, the in-water activity, including pile driving, would be allowed to continue until the risk to human safety has dissipated. In this scenario, pile driving could continue only until the current segment of the pile is driven; no additional sections of pile or additional piles could be driven until the Lead PSO has determined that the shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals and for CIBW, any observed whale(s) is at least 100 meters past the shutdown zone and on a path away from the zone.
AHTs cannot shut down once they have begun positioning anchors. Prior to anchor handling, 8 Star Alaska would implement a clearance zone of 1,500 m around AHTs for all marine mammals other than CIBWs. The clearance zone for beluga whales would be equal to the Level B harassment isopleth (3,850 m). This distance is likely farther than what PSOs could reliably monitor. If visibility is less than the Level B harassment isopleth, PSOs would be expected to clear the zone around AHTs at the distance visible to PSOs.
Monitoring would take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving and anchor handling activities (
8 Star Alaska would monitor for marine mammals in the Level B harassment and Level A harassment zones, to the extent practicable, and throughout the area as far as visual monitoring can occur. Monitoring enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area outside the shutdown zone. Due to some of the large Level A and Level B harassment zones (table 10), PSOs would not be able to effectively observe the entire zones
Soft-start procedures provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors would be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets before initiating continuous driving. Soft start would be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
Operators of vessels would avoid approaching marine mammals within 100 yards (92 m). The vessel operator would avoid placing the vessel in the path of a whale and would not cut in front of the whale in a way or at a distance that causes the whale to change direction of travel or behavior (including breathing/surface pattern). If a whale's course and speed are such that it would likely cross in front of a vessel that is underway, or approach within 100 yards (92 m) of the vessel, and if maritime conditions safely allow, the engine would be put in neutral and the whale would be allowed to pass beyond the vessel. Vessel operators would reduce speed to 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less when weather conditions reduce visibility to 1.6 km (1 mile) or less. When within 300 yards of a whale (274 m), vessels would travel at less than 5 knots, and vessel operators should avoid changes in direction and speed within 300 yards (274 m) of a whale, unless doing so is necessary for maritime safety.
For vessels operating in the Susitna Delta Exclusion Zone (see figure 2), the following would be implemented:
• All project vessels operating within the designated Susitna Delta area would maintain a speed above ground below 4 knots. PSOs would note the numbers, date, time, coordinates, and proximity to vessels of all belugas observed during operations and report these observations to NMFS in monthly reports.
• Vessel crew would be trained to monitor for ESA-listed species prior to and during all vessel movement within the Susitna Delta Exclusion Zone. The vessel crew would report sightings to the PSO team for inclusion in the overall sighting database and reports.
• Vessel operators would not move their vessels when they are unable to adequately observe the 100-meter zone around vessels under power (in gear) due to darkness, fog, or other conditions, unless necessary for ensuring human safety.
The Susitna Delta Exclusion Zone (see figure 2) is defined as the union of the areas defined by:
(i) A 16-km (10-mile) buffer of the Beluga River thalweg seaward of the MLLW line;
(ii) A 16-km (10-mile) buffer of the Little Susitna River thalweg seaward of the MLLW line; and
(iii) A 16-km (10-mile) seaward buffer of the MLLW line between the Beluga River and Little Susitna River.
(iv) The buffer extends landward along the thalweg to include intertidal waters within rivers and streams up to their MHHW. The seaward boundary has been simplified so that it is defined by lines connecting readily discernable landmarks.
Pile driving associated with the Mainline MOF would not occur from June 1 to September 7.
Between April 15 and October 15, 8 Star Alaska would not conduct pile driving or AHT activities with Level B harassment isopleths that would extend shoreward of the MLLW line in the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the Little Susitna River; see figure 2) and project vessel(s) operating in or transiting through Cook Inlet would maintain a distance of at least 1.5 nautical miles seaward of the MLLW line in the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the Little Susitna River).
Each construction year, 8 Star Alaska proposes to use a noise attenuation device, such as a bubble curtain, and test it for effectiveness through Sound Source Verification (SSV) (see Proposed Monitoring section below) at the beginning of pile driving. If the results show at least a 2 dB source reduction is achieved, 8 Star Alaska would employ the use of noise attenuation, such as bubble curtains, throughout construction. Once the contractor is selected, 8 Star Alaska would work with the contractor and NMFS to identify the appropriate type of noise attenuation system for the specific hammer and equipment.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.
In order to issue an LOA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine mammal monitoring would be conducted in accordance with 8 Star Alaska's NMFS-approved Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, dated April 4, 2025, and included as Appendix A in its application.
Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal would be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
• PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods.
• At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization.
• Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in biological science or related field), or training for prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization. PSOs may also substitute Alaska native traditional knowledge for experience. (NMFS recognizes that PSOs with traditional knowledge may also have prior experience and be eligible to serve as the lead PSO.).
• Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization.
• PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to this rule.
PSOs should have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field of identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
For all pile driving activities, a minimum of two PSOs would be on duty at all times. In general, PSOs would be stationed on a stable land-based platform with sufficient height, such as bluffs, to provide excellent viewing conditions for marine mammals, although detection varies by species and is affected by weather conditions. For anchor handling, two PSOs would be on the barge, and one PSO would always be on duty.
PSOs would not exceed 4 consecutive watch hours, would have at least a two-hour break between watches, and would not exceed a watch schedule of more than 12 hours per 24-hour period. PSOs would have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. Monitoring would be conducted from 30 minutes prior to activity (pile driving or anchor handling), throughout the time of the activity (pile driving or anchor handling), and for 30 minutes following the conclusion of the activity (pile driving or anchor handling). PSOs would monitor using the naked eye, standard (7×) binoculars, and high-magnification (25×) binoculars. Monitoring distances would be measured with range finders, and distances to animals must be based on the best estimate of the PSO, relative to known distances to objects in the vicinity of the PSO.
8 Star Alaska would conduct SSV in accordance with accepted methodology as described in the Sound Source Verification Plan, which 8 Star Alaska would develop after its contractor is selected. NMFS would review and approve the plan prior to implementation. 8 Star Alaska would conduct SSV at the beginning of pile driving to characterize the sound levels associated with different pile and hammer types and assess attenuation devices, such as bubble curtains. The SSV would be conducted in accordance with the following conditions:
• 8 Star Alaska must measure a minimum of two piles of each type and size.
• The following data, at minimum, shall be collected during acoustic monitoring and reported: (1) hydrophone equipment and methods: recording device, sampling rate, distance (m) from the pile where recordings were made; depth of water and recording device(s); (2) type and size of pile being driven, substrate type, method of driving during recordings (
An SSV report would be submitted to NMFS for approval within five days after finalization of field measurements and report data. If appropriate, the results of the SSV report could be used to adjust the extent of the Level A and Level B harassment zones for in-water pile driving.
8 Star Alaska would submit interim monthly reports for all months in which pile driving or anchor handling occurs. Monthly reports would be due 14 days after the conclusion of each calendar month, and must include a summary of marine mammal species and behavioral observations, delays, and activities completed. They would also include an assessment of the amount of work (pile driving and anchor handling) remaining to be completed, in addition to the number of CIBWs observed within estimated harassment zones to date.
8 Star Alaska would submit draft annual reports to NMFS within 90 calendar days of the completion of construction (pile driving, anchor handling) each year. Each report would include an overall description of all work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated marine mammal observation data sheets (data must be submitted
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Activities occurring during each observation period, including (a) the type of activity; (b) the total duration of each type of activity; (c) when nighttime operations were required; (d) the number and type of piles that were driven and the method (
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at the beginning and end of the PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state, tidal state, and any other relevant weather conditions, including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
• Upon observation of a marine mammal, (a) name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting, (b) time of sighting, (c) identification of the animal(s) (
• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and
• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days of receipt of the draft report, the report would be considered final. If comments are received, 8 Star Alaska would submit a final report addressing NMFS' comments within 30 days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the draft reports.
In the event that personnel involved in 8 Star Alaska's activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, 8 Star Alaska would report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, 8 Star Alaska would immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the incidental take authorization. 8 Star Alaska would not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The report would include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude and longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all species listed in table 4, except for CIBWs, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. For CIBWs, there are meaningful differences in anticipated responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population, or impacts on habitat; therefore, we provide a separate independent detailed analysis for CIBWs following the analysis for other species for which we propose to authorize take.
NMFS has identified several key factors to assess whether potential impacts associated with a specified activity should be considered negligible. These include (but are not limited to) the type and magnitude of taking, the amount and importance of the available habitat for the species or stock that is affected, the duration of the anticipated effect on the individuals, and the status of the species or stock. The potential effects of the specified activity on humpback whales, minke whales, gray whales, fin whales, killer whales, Dall's porpoises, harbor porpoises, Pacific white-sided dolphins, Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and California sea lions are discussed below. These factors also apply to CIBWs; however, additional analysis for CIBWs is provided in a separate sub-section below.
8 Star Alaska's specified activities have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals, and the number of takes proposed for authorization for 8 Star Alaska's activities have been identified above in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section. Potential takes are anticipated to occur when marine mammals are present in zones ensonified above the thresholds for Level B harassment, identified above, while activities are underway. Additionally, for impact pile driving activities, potential takes by Level A harassment could occur if marine mammals are present in zones ensonified above relevant threshold criteria for sufficient periods of time to
Exposure to elevated sound levels produced during AHTs engaged in anchor handling and pile driving activities has the potential to cause behavioral disturbance of some individuals within the vicinity of the sound source. Behavioral responses of marine mammals to 8 Star Alaska's AHTs engaged in anchor handling activities are expected to be mild, short term, and temporary. Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, as enumerated in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities (Horsley and Larson, 2023, 2024), would likely be limited to behavioral response such as increased swimming speeds, changes in directions of travel and diving and surfacing behaviors, increased respiration rates, or interrupted foraging (if such activity were occurring) (Ridgway
AHTs engaged in anchor handling are slow-moving as compared to typical recreational and commercial vessel traffic. Assuming an animal was stationary, exposure to sound above the Level B harassment threshold from the moving AHT configuration would be on the order of minutes in any particular location. The slow, predictable, and generally straight path of this activity is expected to further lower the likelihood of more than low-level responses to the sound. Also, this slow transit along a predictable path is planned in an area of routine vessel traffic where many large vessels move in slow straight-line paths, and some individuals are expected to be habituated to these sorts of sounds. While it is possible that animals may swim around the project area, avoiding closer approaches to the vessels, we do not expect them to abandon any intended path. Further, most animals present in the region would likely be transiting through the area; therefore, any potential exposure is expected to be brief. Based on the characteristics of the sound source and the other activities regularly encountered in the area, it is unlikely 8 Star Alaska's planned anchor handling activities would be of a duration or intensity expected to result in significant behavioral responses that may be more likely to result in impacts on reproduction or survival.
Effects on individuals that are taken during pile driving, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, would likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or interrupted foraging (if such activity were occurring;
Further, most of the species present in the region would only be present temporarily based on seasonal patterns or during transit between other habitats. These temporarily present species would be exposed to even shorter periods of noise-generating activity, further decreasing the impacts. Most likely, individual animals would simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the area. Takes also have the potential to occur during important feeding times. However, the project area represents a small portion of available foraging habitat and impacts on marine mammal feeding for all species should be minimal.
We anticipate that any potential reactions and behavioral changes would subside quickly when the exposures cease, and, therefore, we do not expect long-term adverse consequences from 8 Star Alaska's proposed activities for individuals of any species. The intensity of harassment events would be minimized through use of mitigation measures described herein, which were not quantitatively factored into the take estimates. 8 Star Alaska would use PSOs to monitor for marine mammals before commencing any of the specified activities, which would minimize the potential for marine mammals to be present within the estimated Level A and Level B harassment areas, further reducing the likely amount of any potential Level A or Level B harassment. Further, given the absence of any major rookeries or areas of known biological significance for marine mammals (
Theoretically, repeated, sequential exposure to elevated noise from vibratory and impact pile driving and noise from AHTs over a long duration could result in more severe impacts to individuals that could affect individual fitness or reproductive success (via sustained or repeated disruption of important behaviors such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing; Southall
NMFS anticipates take by Level A harassment of three species due to the potential that an animal could enter and remain within the area between a Level A harassment zone and shutdown zone during impact pile driving for a duration long enough to be taken by Level A harassment. Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree of AUD INJ, because animals would need to be exposed to higher levels and/or longer duration than are expected to occur here in order to incur any more than a small degree of AUD INJ. Additionally, some subset of the individuals that are behaviorally harassed could also simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration of time. Because of the small degree anticipated, though, any PTS or TTS potentially incurred here is not expected to adversely impact individual fitness, let alone annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Impacts to marine mammal prey species are also expected to be minor and temporary and to have, at most, short-term effects on foraging of individual marine mammals, and likely no effect on the populations of marine mammals as a whole. Overall, as described above, the area anticipated to be impacted by 8 Star Alaska's planned activities is very small compared to the available surrounding habitat and does not include habitat of particular importance to marine mammals. The most likely impact to prey would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the immediate area. While AHTs are engaged in anchor handling and pile driving activities, it is expected that some fish would temporarily leave the area of disturbance (
Finally, 8 Star Alaska would minimize potential exposure of marine mammals to elevated noise levels by implementing mitigation measures for AHTs engaged in anchor handling and pile driving activities. For anchor handling activities conducted by AHTs, 8 Star Alaska would delay anchor handling activities if marine mammals are observed in the clearance zones during the pre-clearance monitoring period. For pile driving, 8 Star Alaska would delay the start of pile driving activities if marine mammals are observed during the pre-clearance monitoring period and would implement hearing group-specific shutdown zones during the activities. 8 Star Alaska would implement soft-start procedures to provide warning and/or give marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. If SSV shows that bubble curtains are effective to result in at least a 2 dB reduction in sound during pile driving, bubble curtains would be implemented.
In summary and as described above, the following factors (with additional analyses for CIBWs included below) primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from 8 Star Alaska's activities are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed for authorization;
• Take by Level A harassment is proposed for only three species, and the Level A harassment is expected to be of a lower degree that would not impact the fitness of any animals;
• The intensity of anticipated takes by Level B harassment is low for all stocks consisting of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior, and would not be of a duration or intensity expected to result in impacts on reproduction or survival;
• Take would not occur in places and/or times where take is more likely to impact reproduction or survival, such as within ESA-designated or proposed critical habitat or BIAs (other than for CIBWS as described below) or other habitats critical to recruitment or survival (
• The project area represents a very small portion of the available foraging area for all potentially impacted marine mammal species;
• Take would occur only within middle Cook Inlet, a limited, confined area of any given stock's home range;
• Monitoring reports from previous projects with pile driving and/or tugging activities in Cook Inlet have documented little to no observable effect on individuals of the same species impacted by the specified activities; and
• The required mitigation measures are expected to be effective in reducing the effects of the specified activity by minimizing the numbers of marine mammals exposed to sound and the intensity of the exposures.
For CIBWs, we further discuss our preliminary negligible impact findings in addition to the findings discussed above for all species in the context of potential impacts to the endangered stock based on our evaluation of the take proposed (table 17).
All of 8 Star Alaska's activities would be conducted in a manner implementing best management practices to preserve water quality, and no work would occur around creek mouths or river systems leading to prey abundance reductions. In addition, no physical structures would restrict passage, though impacts to the acoustic habitat are relevant and discussed here. While the specified activities would occur within CIBW Critical Habitat Area 2, and the CIBW small and resident BIA (see the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section), monitoring data from similar regional activities suggest that the presence of tugs under load do not discourage CIBWs from transiting throughout Cook Inlet and between critical habitat areas and that the whales do not abandon critical habitat areas (
Generation of sound may result in avoidance behaviors that would be limited in time and space relative to the larger availability of important habitat areas in Cook Inlet; however, the area ensonified by sound from the specified activity is anticipated to be small compared to the overall available critical habitat for CIBWs to feed and travel. Therefore, the specified activity would not create a barrier to movement through or within important areas. We anticipate that disturbance to CIBWs would manifest in the same manner as other marine mammals described above (
Although data demonstrate that CIBWs are not abandoning the planned project area during anthropogenic activities, results of an expert elicitation (EE) at a 2016 workshop, which predicted the impacts of noise on CIBW survival and reproduction given a specific amount of lost foraging opportunities, helped to inform our assessment of impacts on this stock. The 2016 EE workshop used conceptual models of an interim population consequences of disturbance (PCoD) for marine mammals (National Research Council (NRC), 2005, New
For each of the noise effect mechanisms chosen for the EE, the experts provided a set of parameters and values that determined the forms of a relationship between the number of days of disturbance a female CIBW experiences in a particular period and the effect of that disturbance on her energy reserves. Examples included the number of days of disturbance during the period April, May, and June that would be predicted to reduce the energy reserves of a pregnant CIBW to such a level that she is certain to terminate the pregnancy or abandon the calf soon after birth, the number of days of disturbance in the period April-September required to reduce the energy reserves of a lactating CIBW to a level where she is certain to abandon her calf, and the number of days of disturbance where a female fails to gain sufficient energy by the end of summer to maintain herself and her calf during the subsequent winter. Overall, median values ranged from 16 to 69 days of disturbance depending on the question. However, for this elicitation, a “day of disturbance” was defined as any day on which an animal loses the ability to forage for at least one tidal cycle (
Further, 8 Star Alaska would implement mitigation measures specific to CIBWs. 8 Star Alaska would not begin anchor handling activities should a CIBW be observed within the Level B harassment zone. In addition, 8 Star Alaska would implement shutdown zones for pile driving for beluga whales that extend to the Level B harassment isopleth, or in cases where the Level B harassment zones are too large to fully observe, to the extent that PSOs can observe, minimizing Level B harassment of beluga whales. While Level B harassment is proposed for authorization, these measures, along with other mitigation measures described herein, would limit the severity of the effects of that Level B harassment to behavioral changes such as increased swim speeds, changes in diving and surfacing behaviors, and alterations to communication signals, not the loss of foraging capabilities. NMFS is also proposing time/area restrictions, such that noise would be restricted in the Susitna delta during critical foraging times and high CIBW density. Finally, take by mortality, serious injury, or Level A harassment of CIBWs is not anticipated or proposed for authorization.
In summary, and as described above, the additional following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from 8 Star Alaska's proposed activities are not expected to adversely affect the CIBWs through effects on annual rates or recruitment or survival:
• The area of exposure would be limited to habitat primarily used for transiting and not areas known to be of particular importance for feeding or reproduction;
• The activities are not expected to result in CIBWs abandoning critical habitat nor are they expected to restrict passage of CIBWs within or between critical habitat areas; and
• Any disturbance to CIBWs is expected to be limited to temporary modifications in behavior and would not be of a duration or intensity expected to result in impacts on reproduction or survival.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity would have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the maximum number of individual taken in any year to the most appropriate estimation of
For all stocks whose abundance estimate is known the amount of taking is less than one-third of the best available population abundance estimate (see table 18). The number of animals proposed for authorization to be taken from these stocks, therefore, would be considered small relative to the relevant stock abundance even if each estimated take occurred to a new individual.
There is no stock-wide abundance estimate for Northeast Pacific fin whales. However, Muto
Abundance estimates for the Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback whales are based upon data collected more than 8 years ago and, therefore, current estimates are considered unknown (Young
A lack of an accepted stock abundance value for the Alaska stock of minke whale did not allow for the calculation of an expected percentage of the population that may be affected. The most relevant estimate of partial stock abundance is 1,233 minke whales in coastal waters of the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands (Zerbini
The Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise has no official NMFS abundance estimate for this area, as the most recent estimate is greater than 8 years old. As described in the 2021 Alaska SAR (Muto
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
In order to promulgate regulations, NMFS must find that the specified activity will not have an “unmitigable adverse impact” on the subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) that is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The proposed Marine Terminal construction activities on the east side of Cook Inlet would occur closest to the subsistence area used by residents of Nikiski, while the offshore pipeline and Mainline MOF would occur closest to the subsistence use area used by residents of Tyonek. Subsistence hunting in Cook Inlet consists mostly of opportunistic hunting of seals. Subsistence hunting of whales is not known to currently occur in Cook Inlet.
Residents of Nikiski, a small community located on the northwestern end of the Kenai Peninsula on the eastern side of Cook Inlet and just north of the proposed Marine Terminal, conduct minimal subsistence harvesting of marine mammals. In a 2014 survey conducted by Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) (the most recent subsistence survey conducted here) 0.4 percent of the population reported hunting marine mammals and less than 3 percent reported using harvested marine mammals (Jones and Kostick, 2016). Marine mammal species used included bowhead whales (1 percent of households), harbor seals (2 percent of households), and unknown seal species (1 percent of households) (Jones and Kostick, 2016). The bowhead whales were likely received from hunters that harvested elsewhere, as bowhead whales are a circumpolar species that do not occupy Cook Inlet.
The construction of the Mainline MOF is proposed to occur approximately 5 miles (8 km) north of Tyonek. According to a 2013 survey (the last known survey of Tyonek subsistence harvesting), 6.1 percent of households reported harvesting marine mammals, all harbor seals, between June and September (Jones
8 Star Alaska's pile driving and anchor handling may overlap with subsistence hunting of seals. Subsistence hunting occurs mostly nearshore and near river mouths. The majority of anchor handling activities are expected to occur offshore and are therefore expected to have little overlap with subsistence hunting. Any harassment to harbor seals due to pile driving is anticipated to be short-term, mild, and not result in any abandonment or behaviors that would make the animals unavailable for harvest.
To further minimize any potential effects of their action on subsistence activities, 8 Star Alaska has prepared a stakeholder engagement plan outlining previous meetings with stakeholders, including subsistence users, throughout the planning process and plans to continue to meet with them throughout the construction process. 8 Star Alaska would coordinate with local Tribes as
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there would not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from 8 Star Alaska's proposed activities.
These proposed regulations contain an adaptive management component. Our understanding of the effects of pile driving and AHTs engaged in anchor handling (
The monitoring and reporting requirements in this proposed rule would provide NMFS with information that helps us to better understand the impacts of the project's activities on marine mammals and informs our consideration of whether any changes to mitigation and monitoring are appropriate. The use of adaptive management would allow NMFS to consider new information and modify mitigation, monitoring, or reporting requirements, as appropriate, with input from 8 Star Alaska regarding practicability, if such modifications will have a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the measures.
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data that would be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) results from monitoring reports, including the monthly and annual reports required; (2) results from research on marine mammals, noise impacts, or other related topics; and (3) any information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or LOAs issued pursuant to these regulations. Adaptive management decisions could be made at any time as new information warrants. NMFS could consult with 8 Star Alaska regarding the practicability of the modifications.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of fin whale, humpback whale (Northeast Pacific and Mexico-North Pacific), beluga whale (Cook Inlet), and Steller sea lion (Western), which are listed under the ESA.
NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on June 3, 2020, concluding that the issuance of an LOA for the same project activities in Cook Inlet was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened and endangered species under NMFS' jurisdiction and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat.
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources is currently consulting with NMFS' Alaska Regional Office pursuant to section 7 of the ESA for the promulgation of these regulations and issuance of an LOA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the provisions of the PRA. These requirements have been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0151 and include the applications for regulations, subsequent LOAs, and reports. Submit comments regarding any aspect of this data collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to promulgate regulations that would allow for the authorization of take, by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, incidental to 8 Star Alaska's pile driving and AHT activities in Cook Inlet, Alaska for a 5-year period from January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2030, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning 8 Star Alaska's request and the proposed regulations (see
Administrative practice and procedure, Acoustics, Endangered and threatened species, Fish, Fisheries, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting
For reasons set forth in the preamble, NMFS proposes to revise 50 CFR part 217 as follows:
16 U.S.C 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to 8 Star Alaska or successor entities and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities described in paragraph (c) of this section. Requirements imposed on 8 Star Alaska must be implemented by those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by 8 Star Alaska may be authorized in a Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within 8 Star Alaska's Alaska liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities' construction areas, which are located between the Beluga Landing shoreline crossing on the north and the Kenai River south of Nikiski on the south in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
(c) The taking of marine mammals during this project is only authorized if it occurs incidental to activities associated with 8 Star Alaska's construction of LNG facilities.
Regulations in this subpart are effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2030.
(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and this subpart, the holder of the LOAs and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf (hereinafter “8 Star Alaska”) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 217.40(b) by Level A harassment and Level B harassment associated with construction of LNG facilities, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA.
Except for the taking permitted in § 217.42 and authorized by the LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and this subpart, it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following in connection with the specified activities:
(a) Violate or fail to comply with the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or the LOA issued under this subpart;
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 217.42;
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in the LOA in any manner other than as specified in the LOA;
(d) Take any marine mammal specified in § 217.42 after NMFS determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal; or
(e) Take any marine mammal specified in § 217.42 after NMFS determines such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.
When conducting the activities identified in § 217.40(c), the mitigation measures contained in this section and any LOAs issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and this subpart must be implemented. These mitigation measures include:
(a) A copy of any issued LOA must be in the possession of 8 Star Alaska, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of the issued LOA.
(b) 8 Star Alaska must employ protected species observers (PSOs) and establish monitoring locations pursuant to § 217.45.
(c) 8 Star Alaska must implement shutdown zones for pile driving and clearance zones for anchor handling with radial distances as identified in any LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.46.
(1) Monitoring of shutdown or clearance zones must take place from 30 minutes prior to commencing impact and vibratory pile driving or use of tugs for anchor-handling (AHTs), or if there is a 30-minute lapse in such activities, and must continue for 30 minutes following conclusion of the activity.
(i) Pre-start clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the PSO(s) to determine that the clearance zones are clear of marine mammals, except in cases where tugging operations occur during nighttime hours. In these circumstances, 8 Star Alaska must ensure the clearance zones are clear of marine mammals to the maximum extent possible.
(ii) The specified activities identified in § 217.40(c) may only commence following 30 minutes of observation when PSOs determine that the shutdown or clearance zones are clear of marine mammals.
(iii) If the activity is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity must not commence until either the animal(s) has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone for 30 minutes (large whales and beluga whales) or 15 minutes (pinnipeds and other cetaceans).
(2) Pile driving must be halted upon observation of a marine mammal entering or within the shutdown zone. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily left and has been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes (pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (cetaceans) have passed without re-detection of the animal.
(i) If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the shutdown zones must be cleared again for 30 minutes prior to reinitiating pile driving. A determination that the pile driving shutdown zone is clear must be made during a period of good visibility.
(ii) If a shutdown procedure should be initiated but human safety is at risk as determined by the best professional judgment of the vessel operator or project engineer, the in-water activity, including pile driving, is allowed to
(3) If a PSO(s) can no longer effectively monitor the entirety of the corresponding shutdown zone during impact pile driving, or at least 2 km during vibratory pile driving, due to environmental conditions (
(4) If a species for which authorization has not been granted or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes have been reached is observed approaching, entering, or within the corresponding zone, in-water work must be delayed (if during pre-clearance) or shut down (except for AHTs engaged in anchor handling). Activities must not resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown or clearance zone for 30 minutes (large whales and beluga whales) or 15 minutes (pinnipeds and other cetaceans) without re-detection of the animal.
(d) 8 Star Alaska must use soft start techniques when impact pile driving. Soft start requires contractors to conduct three sets of strikes (three strikes per set) at reduced hammer energy with a one-minute waiting period between each set. A soft start must be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
(e) 8 Star Alaska must coordinate with local subsistence communities as described in their Stakeholder Engagement Plan, notify the communities of any changes in operation, and work with communities to avoid or mitigate impacts to subsistence harvest through pre-construction planning, communication, or other actions.
(f) Between April 15 and October 15, 8 Star Alaska must not conduct pile driving or AHT activities with Level B harassment isopleths that would extend shoreward of the MLLW line in the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the Little Susitna River) and project vessel(s) operating in or transiting through Cook Inlet must maintain a distance of at least 1.5 miles nautical miles seaward of the MLLW line in the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the Little Susitna River).
(g) Operators of vessels must avoid approaching within 100 yards (92 m) of marine mammals.
(h) If a whale's course and speed are such that it would likely cross in front of a vessel that is underway or approach within 100 yards (92 m) of the vessel, if maritime conditions safely allow, and if practicable, the engine must be put in neutral and the whale must be allowed to pass beyond the vessel.
(i) Vessel operators must avoid placing the vessel in the path of a whale and must not cut in front of the whale in a way or at a distance the causes the whale to change direction of travel or behavior (including breathing/surface pattern).
(j) When within 300 yards (274 m) of a whale, vessels must travel at less than 5 knots (9 km/hour), and vessel operators must avoid changes in direction and speed unless doing so is necessary for maritime safety.
(k) Vessel operators must reduce speed to 10 knots (18.5 km/hour) or less when weather conditions reduce visibility to 1.6 km (1 mile) or less.
(l) For vessels operating in the Susitna Delta Exclusion Zone, the following must be implemented:
(1) All project vessels operating within the designated Susitna Delta Exclusion Area must maintain a speed over ground below 4 knots (7.4 km/hour). PSOs must note the numbers, date, time, coordinates, and proximity to vessels of all belugas observed during operations and report these observations to NMFS in monthly PSO reports.
(2) Vessel crew must be trained to monitor for Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species prior to and during all vessel movements within the Susitna Delta Exclusion Zone. The vessel crew must report sightings to the PSO team for inclusion in the overall sighting database and reports.
(3) Vessel operators must not move their vessels when they are unable to adequately observe the 100-m zone around vessels under power (in gear) due to darkness, fog, or other conditions, unless necessary for ensuring human safety.
(4) The Susitna Delta Exclusion Zones is defined as the union of the areas defined by:
(i) A 16-km (10-mile) buffer of the Beluga River thalweg seaward of the mean lower low water (MLLW) line;
(ii) A 16-km (10-mile) buffer of the Little Susitna River thalweg seaward of the MLLW line; and
(iii) A 16-km (10-mile) seaward buffer of the MLLW line between the Beluga River and Little Susitna River.
(iv) The buffer extends landward along the thalweg to include intertidal waters within rivers and streams up to their mean higher high water line (MHHW).
(m) 8 Star Alaska must conduct sound source verification (SSV) measurements prior to the start of all pile driving activities at each location. During SSV, a sound attenuation device must be tested for effectiveness. If the results show that a sound source reduction of at least 2 dB is achieved, 8 Star Alaska must employ the use of the sound attenuation device.
(n) 8 Star Alaska must abide by the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement issued by NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
(a)
(1) PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods;
(2) At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;
(3) Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in biological science or related field), or training for prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization. PSOs may also substitute Alaska native traditional knowledge for experience;
(4) Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;
(5) PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization; and
(6) 8 Star Alaska must adhere to the following marine mammal monitoring protocols:
(i) For all pile driving activities, a minimum of two PSOs must be on duty at all times.
(ii) For anchor handling, two PSOs must be on the barge, and one PSO must be on duty at all times.
(iii) PSOs must monitor for marine mammals from the best available vantage point to allow for an unobstructed view of the water.
(iv) When conducting observations from the barge during anchor handling, PSOs must have an unobstructed 360-degree view of the water.
(v) PSO(s) must use a combination of equipment to scan the appropriate monitoring area and to verify the required monitoring distance from the project site, including the naked eye, standard (7×) binoculars, and high-magnification (25×) binoculars.
(vi) Monitoring distances must be measured with range finders, and distances to animals must be based on the best estimate of the PSO, relative to known distances to objects in the vicinity of the PSO.
(vii) PSOs must not exceed 4 consecutive watch hours; must have a minimum two-hour break between watches; and may not exceed a combined watch schedule of more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period.
(viii) PSOs must have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
(ix) Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving or anchor handling activity, through 30 minutes post completion of pile driving activity or anchor handling activity.
(b)
(1) 8 Star Alaska must conduct SSV at the beginning of pile driving to characterize the sound source levels associated with different pile and hammer types and assess attenuation devices. The SSV must be conducted in accordance with the following conditions:
(i) NMFS must approve the SSV plan.
(ii) 8 Star Alaska must measure a minimum of two piles of each type and size.
(iii) The following data, at minimum, shall be collected during acoustic monitoring and reported:
(A) Hydrophone equipment and methods: recording device, sampling rate, distance (m) from the pile where recordings were made; depth of water and recording device(s);
(B) Type and size of pile being driven, substrate type, method of driving during recordings (
(C) Whether a sound attenuation device is used and, if so, a detailed description of the device used and the duration of its use per pile;
(D) For impact pile driving (per pile): Number of strikes and strike rate; depth of substrate to penetrate; pulse duration and mean, median, and maximum sound levels (dB re: 1 μPa): root mean square sound pressure level (SPL
(E) For vibratory driving/removal (per pile): Duration of driving per pile; mean, median, and maximum sound levels (dB re: 1 μPa): root mean square sound pressure level (SPL
(iv) An SSV report must be submitted to NMFS for approval within five days after the finalization of field measurements and report data.
(v) If appropriate, the results of the SSV report may be used to adjust the extent of the Level A and Level B harassment zones for in-water pile driving. NMFS must approve any such adjustments.
(c)
(1) 8 Star Alaska must submit interim monthly reports for all months in which pile driving or anchor handling occurs. Monthly reports are due 14 days after the conclusion of each calendar month. The monthly reports must include the following:
(i) Summary of marine mammal species and behavioral observation, delays, and activities completed.
(ii) Assessment of the amount of work (pile driving and anchor handling) remaining to be completed.
(iii) Number of Cook Inlet beluga whales observed within estimated harassment zones to date.
(2) 8 Star Alaska must submit a draft annual report to NMFS within 90 calendar days of the completion of construction (pile driving and anchor handling) each year. Each report must include an overall description of all work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated marine mammal observation data sheets (data must be submitted electronically in a format that can be queried such as a spreadsheet or database). Specifically, the report must include the following information:
(i) Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends;
(ii) Activities occurring during each observation period, including:
(A) The type of activity,
(B) The total duration of each type of activity,
(C) When nighttime operations were required,
(D) The number and type of piles that were driven and the method (
(E) Total duration of driving time for each pile (vibratory driving) and total number of strikes for each pile (impact driving);
(iii) PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
(iv) Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at the beginning and end of the PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state, tidal state, and any other relevant weather conditions, including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
(v) Upon observation of a marine mammal:
(A) Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s);
(B) PSO location and activity at time of sighting;
(C) Time of sighting;
(D) Identification of the animal(s) (
(E) PSO confidence in identification and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species;
(F) Distance and location of each observed marine mammal relative to the tugs or pile being driven for each sighting;
(G) Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);
(H) Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition,
(I) Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the harassment zone;
(J) Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations (
(vi) Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and
(vii) Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (
(3) If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days of receipt of the draft annual report, the report shall be considered final. If comments are received, 8 Star Alaska must submit a final report addressing NMFS' comments within 30 days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the draft reports.
(4) In the event that personnel involved in 8 Star Alaska's activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, 8 Star Alaska must report the incident to NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) and to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator no later than 24 hours after the initial observation. If the death or injury was caused by the specified activity, 8 Star Alaska must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS OPR is able to review the circumstances of the incident. 8 Star Alaska must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
(ii) Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
(iii) Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
(iv) Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
(v) If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
(vi) General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these regulations, 8 Star Alaska must apply for and obtain an LOA;
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed December 31, 2030, the expiration date of this subpart;
(c) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by the LOA, 8 Star Alaska must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 217.47;
(d) The LOA must set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(e) Issuance of the LOA must be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations of this subpart; and
(f) Notice of issuance or denial of the LOA must be published in the
(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.46 for the specified activities may be modified upon request by 8 Star Alaska, provided that:
(1) The specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for this subpart (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and
(2) NMFS' Office of Protected Resources determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under this subpart were implemented.
(b) For an LOA modification request by 8 Star Alaska that includes changes to the specified activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section), the LOA shall be modified, provided that:
(1) NMFS' Office of Protected Resources determines that the changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting do not change the findings made for the regulations in this subpart and do not result in more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years); and
(2) NMFS' Office of Protected Resources may, if appropriate, publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.46 of this chapter for the specified activity may be modified by NMFS Office of Protected Resources under the following circumstances:
(1) Through adaptive management, NMFS' Office of Protected Resources may modify (including delete, modify, or add to) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with 8 Star Alaska regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring;
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA include, but are not limited to:
(A) Results from the 8 Star Alaska's monitoring;
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; and
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by this subpart or subsequent LOA.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS' Office of Protected Resources shall publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(2) If NMFS' Office of Protected Resources determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in the LOA issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.46, the LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the
(b) The Attorney General shall:
(b) The Attorney General shall prioritize available funding to support the expansion of drug courts and mental health courts for individuals for which such diversion serves public safety.
(b) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, as appropriate, take steps to require recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance to increase requirements that persons participating in the recipients' programs who suffer from substance use disorder or serious mental illness use substance abuse treatment or mental health services as a condition of participation.
(c) With respect to recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance that operate drug injection sites or “safe consumption sites,” knowingly distribute drug paraphernalia, or permit the use or distribution of illicit drugs on property under their control:
(d) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate measures and revise regulations as necessary to allow, where permissible under applicable law, federally funded programs to exclusively house women and children and to stop sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance through such programs from being housed with unrelated children.
(e) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(b) It is the policy of the executive branch that any revenue-sharing permitted between universities and collegiate athletes should be designed and
(c) To preserve the critical educational and developmental benefits of collegiate athletics for our Nation, it is the policy of the executive branch that third-party, pay-for-play payments to collegiate athletes are improper and should not be permitted by universities. This policy does not apply to compensation provided to an athlete for the fair market value that the athlete provides to a third party, such as for a brand endorsement.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall develop a plan to advance the policies set forth in subsections (a)-(c) of this section through all available and appropriate regulatory, enforcement, and litigation mechanisms, including Federal funding decisions, enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, prohibiting unconstitutional actions by States to regulate interstate commerce, and enforcement of other constitutional and statutory protections, and by working with the Congress and State governments, as appropriate.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, to advance the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Education.