Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Parole Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Final rule.
This rule adjusts the level of civil monetary penalties contained in U.S. Office of Personnel Management regulations implementing the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget guidance.
Valerie Dew, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E St NW, Washington, DC 20415,
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note) (“the 2015 Act”). The 2015 Act required agencies to: (1) adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rule, and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation not later than January 15 of each year. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties. Since the passage of the 2015 Act, OPM has updated the agency's monetary penalties found in 5 CFR part 185 that implement the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986.
This rule takes into account adjustments for the year 2025 based on inflation since the last adjustment. These calculations were made based on guidance contained in Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-25-02:
This final rule is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comments and is effective upon publication in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues guidance annually on calculating adjustments. Under this guidance, OPM has calculated the annual adjustment to the penalties in 5 CFR part 185 that implement the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986. A civil monetary penalty is any assessment with a dollar amount that is levied for a violation of a Federal civil statute or regulation and is assessed or enforceable through a civil action in Federal court or an administrative proceeding. A civil monetary penalty does not include a penalty levied for violation of a criminal statute or fees for services, licenses, permits, or other regulatory review.
The Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-25-02 stated that the cost-of-living multiplier for calculating adjustments in 2025 was 1.02598. This multiplier is to be applied to the current level of civil monetary penalties for agencies (
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, which direct agencies to assess all 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). OMB has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $183 million. This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.
This rule does not have federalism implications. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Does not unduly burden the judicial system.
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(c) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR part 185 as follows:
28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Final rule; technical amendments.
This document makes nomenclature changes to sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) administered by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). This action is necessary to conform with the Executive order of January 20, 2025 (Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government).
This rule is effective as of May 21, 2025.
John “Neal” Latta, Assistant Administrator, Enrollment Services and Vetting Programs; Transportation Security Administration; telephone: (571) 227-4995; email:
You can find an electronic copy of this rule using the internet by accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at
This final rule makes technical amendments to certain sections of the CFR. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 14168 of January 20, 2025 (Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government), requires Federal agencies to use the term “sex” and not “gender” in all applicable agency policies and documents. In compliance with this section of the Executive order, this technical amendment replaces the term “gender” with “sex” wherever it appears in TSA's regulations.
Table 1 identifies the context for each change in 6 CFR part 37
Table 2 identifies the context for each change in 49 CFR part 1500.
Table 3 identifies the context for each change in 49 CFR part 1540.
Table 4 identifies the context for each change in 49 CFR part 1560.
Table 5 identifies the context for each change in 49 CFR part 1572.
These technical revisions are limited to changing the term in TSA's regulations to comply with section 3(c) of the Executive order. TSA is continuing to assess its need for, and use of, information that identifies sex. Specific use cases will be addressed separately from the technical amendments in this rulemaking.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(B)(3)(b)) provides that when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, an agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. TSA has determined that there is good cause for making this technical amendment final without prior proposal and opportunity for
TSA has also determined that this rule is exempt from the notice and comment requirement under the APA because it is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. (
Further, because a notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule under the APA or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Before a rule can take effect, the Congressional Review Act (CRA), as codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808, requires Federal agencies to submit the rule and a report to Congress and the Comptroller General indicating whether it is a major rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C), rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties are not considered rules for the purposes of the CRA. This technical amendment is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. Thus, TSA is not required to submit the rule for review under the CRA.
Classified information, Freedom of information, Licensing and registration, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Personally-identifiable information, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Air carriers, Air transportation, Aircraft, Airports, Buses, Hazardous materials transportation, Law enforcement officers, Maritime carriers, Mass transportation, Railroad safety, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Transportation, Vessels.
Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety, Law enforcement officers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Air transportation, Law enforcement officers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Crime, Explosives, Hazardous materials transportation, Motor carriers, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Transportation Security Administration amends chapter I of title 6, and chapter XII of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 30301 note; 6 U.S.C. 111, 112.
49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40113, 44901-44907, 44913-44914, 44916-44918, 44935-44936, 44939, 44942, 46105; Pub. L. 110-53 (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007) secs. 1408 (6 U.S.C. 1137), 1501 (6 U.S.C. 1151), 1517 (6 U.S.C. 1167), and 1534 (6 U.S.C. 1184).
49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40113, 44901-44907, 44913-44914, 44916-44918, 44925, 44935-44936, 44942, 46105.
49 U.S.C. 114, 40113, 44901, 44902, 44903.
46 U.S.C. 70105; 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103a, 40113, and 46105; 18 U.S.C. 842, 845; 6 U.S.C. 469.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
This direct final rule rescinds the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (Bureau's) procedures by which a State official must notify the Bureau when the official takes an action to enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act.
The final rule is effective July 21, 2025, unless significant adverse comments are received by June 20, 2025. For additional information, see the
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2025-0016, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
George Karithanom, Regulatory Implementation and Guidance Program Analyst, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
This is a direct final rulemaking. A significant adverse comment is one that opposes the rule and raises, alone or in combination with other comments, a sufficiently serious issue under each of the independent grounds provided to support the rule that additional consideration and a substantive response are required. If significant adverse comments are received, notice will be published in the
Section 1042(b) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) requires States to notify the Bureau and “the prudential regulators,”
Pursuant to the Bureau's policy of eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens and rescinding rules that are not necessary to effectuate Congress's statutes, the Bureau is rescinding the regulations related to state notification codified at 12 CFR 1082.1. The regulations at 12 CFR 1082.1, with only minor tweaks that are not necessary to provide the Bureau or the prudential regulators adequate notice of State actions, merely restate the notification requirements codified in section 1042(b). As such, the notification regulations are unnecessary and should be eliminated from the Code of Federal Regulations. Where Congress's statutes are sufficiently clear and prescriptive, regulations do little more than increase costs and cause confusion, and so are unnecessary.
Section 1042(c) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5552(c).
In developing this rule, the Bureau has considered the potential benefits, costs, and impacts as required by section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(A). This rule will reduce regulatory burdens on State Officials and does not impose any obligations on consumers or have any direct impact on their access to consumer financial products or services. Further, it has no unique impact on insured depository institutions or insured credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets, as described in section 1026(a) of the CFPA. Finally, it does not have any unique impact on rural consumers.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). The Bureau is also subject to specific additional procedures under the RFA involving convening a panel to consult with small business representatives before proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.
This rule's only effect is to clarify State Officials' statutory obligations,
Accordingly, the Director hereby certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, neither an IRFA nor a small business review panel is required.
This rule is deregulatory and will eliminate the more substantial information-collection requirements imposed by the regulations codified at 12 CFR 1082.1. It does not impose any additional collection requirements.
Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit unions, Law enforcement, National banks, Savings associations, State and local governments.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revokes Alaskan Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-414 and amends United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes T-248 and T-250 in Alaska. These actions are due to the decommissioning of the Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) portion of the Gambell NDB/distance measuring equipment (DME) in Alaska.
Effective date 0901 UTC, August 7, 2025. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2024-2348 in the
The NPRM proposed to replace the Gambell NDB/DME with a new waypoint (WP) FOXNO. After the publication of the NPRM, the FAA decided to retain the DME portion of the Gambell NDB/DME and continue with the decommissioning of the NDB. With the retention of the DME portion of the Gambell NDB/DME, the FOXNO WP will no longer be utilized by RNAV Routes T-248 or T-250. This action updates the route descriptions for T-248 and T-250 in accordance with that change.
Alaskan VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(b) and United States RNAV Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by revoking Alaskan Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-414 and amending RNAV Routes T-248 and T-250 in Alaska. These proposed actions are due to the decommissioning of the NDB portion of the Gambell NDB/DME in Alaska.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of revoking Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-414 and amending RNAV Routes T-248 and T-250 in Alaska qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
United States Parole Commission, Justice.
Final rule.
The U.S. Parole Commission is adopting a final rule to remove and reserve a procedural rule which concerns prisoners serving any combination of U.S. and D.C. Code sentences that have been aggregated by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“mixed code” offenders) and considered for parole on the basis of a single parole eligibility and mandatory release date on the aggregate sentence.
This regulation is effective May 21, 2025.
Helen Krapels, General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530, telephone (202) 346-7031. Questions about this publication are welcome, but
28 CFR 2.65 pertains to the procedure for considering “mixed code” cases,
Because this is a procedural rule, the matter was voted on
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulation Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation; Executive Order 13565, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation; and Executive Order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative.” The Commission has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule 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. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications requiring a Federalism Assessment.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
This rule will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.
This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E—Congressional Review Act, now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. Moreover, this is a rule of agency practice or procedure that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, and does not come within the meaning of the term “rule” as used in Section 804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure, Prisoners, Probation and parole.
Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission is amending 28 CFR part 2 to read as follows:
18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 4204(a)(6).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary Interim Rule; request for comments.
The Coast Guard is issuing a temporary interim rule from the operating schedule that governs the Eighth Street Bridge, mile 0.29 and the Tenth Street Bridge, mile 0.43, over the Manitowoc River, in the town of Manitowoc, Wisconsin. The City of Manitowoc has requested a full review of the current bridge regulations to alleviate vehicle congestion in downtown Manitowoc. The Coast Guard is seeking comments from the public regarding this deviation and specifically on whether we should make this drawbridge operation schedule permanent.
Effective May 22, 2025, 33 CFR 117.1089(a) is stayed until November 30, 2025. The revision of 33 CFR 117.1089(b) in this rule is also effective from May 22, 2025, until November 30, 2025.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 31, 2025.
You may submit comments and view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this test deviation, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
The Manitowoc River is 35.8 miles long and flows into Lake Michigan at the town of Manitowoc, Wisconsin. Large commercial vessels, along with powered and unpowered recreational vessels, use the navigable portion of the river that extends from the mouth of the river to the head of navigation at mile 2.33. There are two movable bridges over the river.
The Eighth Street Bridge, mile 0.29 is a double leaf bascule bridge that provides a horizontal clearance of 120 feet and a vertical clearance of 12 feet above LWD in the closed position and an unlimited clearance in the open position.
The Tenth Street Bridge, mile 0.43, is a double leaf bascule bridge that provides a horizontal clearance of 120 feet and a vertical clearance of 14 feet above LWD in the closed position and an unlimited clearance in the open position.
Both bridges over the Manitowoc River have operated under a special regulation (33 CFR 117.1089) since 1920, with the last modernization to the regulation occurring in 1955. Since the last review, there have been several important changes to commerce on the river. Specifically, the Wisconsin Central Railroad Bascule Bridge and the Wisconsin Central Railroad Swing Bridge that previously crossed the river have been removed in their entirety. Additionally, the three ferries operated by railroad companies have stopped servicing Manitowoc, Wisconsin.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This 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.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because it is contrary to the public interest to delay the issuance of the rule and the beneficial impacts it provides to the local community and users of the waterway. The bridge is currently only required to remain closed to navigation for short 10-minute periods during commuting hours causing high vehicle congestion. This temporary operating schedule adjusts the designated drawbridge opening times to assist with vehicle congestion. We lack sufficient time to issue a proposed rule and consider comments prior to needing to begin the temporary deviation to the operating schedule.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.
Public concern that vehicles unloaded from the ferry, the S.S. Badger, brought to downtown Manitowoc from Ludington, Michigan were causing vehicle traffic congestion at the Eighth Street Bridge, mile 0.29 and the Tenth Street Bridge, mile 0.43, prompted the City of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, to request special bridge hours when the S.S. Badger unloads vehicles. After a formal inquiry into the operations of the S.S. Badger, it was determined that their slow loading and offloading process did not cause vehicle congestion to downtown Manitowoc.
Thus, to improve the flow of vehicles across the city, WisDOT, in cooperation with the City of Manitowoc, completed studies to make roadway improvements. The studies indicated that a combined 20,600 vehicles cross over the Eighth Street Bridge, mile 0.29 and the Tenth Street Bridge, mile 0.43, daily. Proposed solutions to traffic congestion include instituting one-way traffic on each bridge to facilitate efficient traffic flows. To further ease vehicle congestion, the state of Wisconsin has designed a roundabout to the north and south of the bridges to alleviate vehicles sitting at traffic lights or stop signs. This will help create a better flow of vehicles rather than several small surges of vehicles trying to cross the bridges.
In order to try to minimize traffic congestion in downtown Manitowoc and to meet the reasonable needs of navigation, the Coast Guard will be authorizing a TIR for the Eighth Street Bridge, mile 0.29 and the Tenth Street Bridge, mile 0.43, to allow the public to test the proposed regulation and comment on its effectiveness.
After reviewing drawtender logs for each of the two bridges, we discovered each bridge opens over 500 times annually, and most openings occur between May and October of each year. Of the total openings, approximately 237 openings were done to accommodate recreational vessels, and 263 openings were done to accommodate commercial vessels. This data provides a roughly equal balance of openings between the primary vessel types (recreational and commercial).
Currently, the regulations provide that, from April 1 through October 31, the bridges provide two 10-minute periods (6:50 a.m. to 7 a.m., and 7:50 a.m. to 8 a.m.) and two 15-minute periods (11:55 a.m. to 12:10 p.m., and 12:45 p.m. to 1 p.m.) each day, during which the bridge need not open, to alleviate vehicle congestion at the bridges. The regulations also include a 6-hour advance notice required for openings during a 6-hour period between 10:30 p.m. to 4:30 a.m. The current regulation was drafted by the railroads and approved by the United States Department of War one hundred and four years ago. The regulation was groundbreaking when it was first conceived, but by modern standards, operations of the bridge are cumbersome, as the existing regulation does not account for the increase in population. It is also outdated by the loss of the original railroads. Four short periods to allow vehicles to cross the bridges is an antiquated process that does not meet the current need of land transportation. We reviewed the hourly vehicular traffic logs from the city and discovered each bridge handles over 10,500 cars daily with three hours that peak for vehicle crossings. The three periods are in the morning while people are traveling to work, mid-day when people are traveling for lunch, and evening when people tend to leave work for home. The vehicle counts provided by the city show 1610 vehicles on
Under the new regulation, the times the bridges remain closed to alleviate motor vehicle traffic congestion will be scheduled for three separate hour-long periods during the morning (7 a.m. to 8 a.m.), midday (11 a.m. to noon), and evening (4 p.m. to 5 p.m.) rush-hours when traffic is the busiest. If the bridges remain open during these times, based on the rush hour traffic patterns, the roads will become more congested, making it difficult for vehicles to travel efficiently. As more drivers learn of these mandated periods where the bridge is not required to open, we speculate more drivers will adjust their schedules to cross the bridges during these times.
Furthermore, the old regulation requires special sound signals to request openings for each bridge. This is an antiquated system long overtaken by the utility and popularity of VHF-FM Marine Radios and cellular telephones (utilized in most vessel calls to the bridges when requesting openings). By removing these specialized series of horn blasts in the new regulation, we will simplify the process and make the rule easier to understand and remember.
Weekend and holiday tourism patterns diverge heavily from weekday patterns. As a result, on weekends and holidays, the bridges will open on signal during the day, but not during the evenings. This change will avoid impeding trade or travel levels typically associated with these traditional non-working days.
The current regulation allows for a deviation for six hours in the evening from the general requirement in 33 CFR 117.7(a) to man the drawbridge with drawtenders (10:30 p.m. to 4:30 a.m.) and requires mariners to provide six hours advance notice when requesting bridge openings. The current regulation is generally unaccommodating to mariners and creates a potential safety risk to mariners seeking safe harbor from storms. It requires a 6-hour notice for an opening, but the closure itself is 6-hours in duration. As a result, ships traveling to Manitowoc or leaving port who are running a little late from loading or unloading cargo may need to wait until morning for the bridge to open. To better accommodate vessels which may require an opening, we are adjusting the evening and morning hours by 30 minutes (10 p.m. to 4 a.m.) and are also reducing the advance notice to 2 hours, instead of 6 hours, based on times when vessels seldom request openings.
The current regulation lists winter hours starting on November 1 and ending on March 31. Drawtender logs show the bridges open an average of 75 times during the month of November. Moving the winter hours to begin on December 1 would relieve the mariners from the burden of the advance notice requirements in November and would allow the city to have a drawtender on duty during the busy November months, without recalling personnel to operate the bridges. Therefore, the new regulation includes a provision changing the beginning of the winter hours to December 1.
We are considering making this temporary interim rule's regulation for the drawbridge operation permanent and request public comment on that path.
On April 30, 2024, we emailed a draft copy of the proposed temporary rule to the City of Manitowoc, Lake Carriers Association, Rand Logistics Incorporated, and Chamber of Marine Commerce for initial comments prior to publishing the test deviation on
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. Your comments will help us determine if this operating schedule should become the new permanent operating schedule.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge 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 contact 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
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has 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 promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, Table 1 and Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Revision No. 01.3
(b) The draws of the Eighth Street Bridge, mile 0.29 and the Tenth Street Bridge, mile 0.43, over the Manitowoc River at Manitowoc, shall open on signal except that:
(1) From April 1 through November 30, Monday through Friday, the bridges need not open from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m., and 11 a.m. to 12 p.m., and again from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., except federal holidays. From 10 p.m. to 4 a.m., the bridges will open on signal if provided a 2-hour advance notice of arrival.
(2) From December 1 through March 31 the draws shall open on signal if at least a 12-hour advance notice is given.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS closes the Angling category southern New England area fishery for large medium and giant (“trophy” (
Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, May 16, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
Aiman Raza,
Atlantic BFT fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801
Under § 635.28(a)(1), NMFS files a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. Retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited on and after the effective date and time of a closure notice for that category, for the remainder of the fishing year, until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified.
Every year, the BFT fishing year starts on January 1 and ends on December 31. The Angling category opens on January 1 and continues through December 31 or until the applicable quota or subquota is reached or projected to be reached, whichever comes first. As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 metric tons (mt) (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area per § 635.27(a)(3)). The Angling category baseline quota is 297.4 mt, of which 9.2 mt (3.1 percent of the annual Angling category quota) is sub-allocated for the harvest of large medium and giant (trophy) BFT by vessels fishing under the Angling category quota, with 2.3 mt (25 percent of the annual large medium and giant BFT Angling category quota) allocated for each of the four areas delineated at § 635.27(a)(2)(iii), including the area that is south of 42° N lat. and north of 39°18′ N lat. (the southern New England area). Trophy BFT measure 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length or greater. This closure action applies to the southern New England area.
Based on landings data from the NMFS Automated Catch Reporting System, as well as average catch rates and anticipated fishing conditions, NMFS has determined the Angling category southern New England area trophy BFT subquota of 2.3 mt is projected to be reached and exceeded shortly. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant (
If needed to ensure available quotas or subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance fishing opportunities, subsequent Angling category adjustments or closures will be published in the
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely. Per § 635.5(c)(1), HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635, and this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the HMS FMP and its amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing for prior notice and opportunity to comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as this fishery is currently underway and, based on the most recent landings information, the Angling category southern New England area trophy BFT fishery subquota is projected to be reached and exceeded shortly. Delaying this action could result in excessive trophy BFT landings that may result in future potential quota reductions for the Angling category, depending on the magnitude of a potential Angling category overharvest. NMFS must close the southern New England area trophy BFT fishery before additional landings of these sizes of BFT occur. Taking this action does not raise conservation and management concerns, and would support effective management of the BFT fishery. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment criteria.
For all of the above reasons, the AA also finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch (POP) in the Bering Sea subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to fully use the 2025 total allowable catch of POP specified for the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 19, 2025, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2025. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., June 5, 2025.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2024-0116, by any of the following methods:
•
Steve Whitney, 907-206-6783.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
NMFS closed directed fishing for POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) in the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025).
NMFS has determined that as of May 14, 2025, approximately 5,500 metric tons of POP remain in the directed fishing allowance. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2025 total allowable catch of POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for POP in Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI, effective 1200 hours, A.l.t., May 19, 2025, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2025. This will provide harvest opportunities for and enhance the socioeconomic well-being of harvesters dependent on POP in this area.
The Administrator, Alaska Region considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) the current catch of POP in the BSAI; and (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent of future harvesting patterns of vessels participating in this fishery.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on POP only became available as of May 14, 2025.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the directed fishery for POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until June 5, 2025.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that the interface pin of the secondary load path in the upper gimbal of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) was incorrectly installed. This proposed AD would require a detailed visual inspection of the interface pin of the HSTA to determine if the interface pin is incorrectly installed, and applicable on-condition actions as specified in a Transport Canada AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 7, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Camille Seay, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-222-5149; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Camille Seay, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-222-5149; email:
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07, dated January 27, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states a production quality escape was discovered, where the interface pin of the secondary load path in the upper gimbal of the HSTA was incorrectly installed. This condition, if not corrected, could compromise the secondary load path in the upper gimbal of the HSTA and cause a mechanical disconnect of the horizontal stabilizer leading to a loss of control of the airplane.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07 specifies procedures for a detailed visual inspection of the interface pin of the secondary load path in the upper gimbal of the HSTA to determine if the interface pin is incorrectly installed, and applicable on-condition actions including modification of an incorrectly installed interface pin. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 90 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by July 7, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07, dated January 27, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports that the interface pin of the secondary load path in the upper gimbal of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) was incorrectly installed. The FAA is issuing this AD to ensure the interface pin of the HSTA is installed correctly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a mechanical disconnect of the horizontal stabilizer leading to a loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07 refers to hours air time, this AD requires using flight hours.
Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are not allowed.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Camille Seay, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-222-5149; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07, dated January 27, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and A350-1041 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of mechanical noises originating from the nose landing gear (NLG) shock absorber during ground maneuvers. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections (
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 7, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0093, dated April 24, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0093) (also referred to as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and A350-1041 airplanes. The MCAI reports instances of mechanical noises originating from the NLG shock absorber during ground maneuvers. Further analysis traced these noises to higher than expected friction between the lower bearing carrier (LBC) and the main fitting of the sliding tube. This friction may cause deformation of the LBC's anti-rotation tabs, leading to relative movement between the LBC and the main fitting. As a result, wear on the corrosion protection coating of the main fitting may occur due to subsequent movement of the retainer ring positioned between these components, which could lead to corrosion of the NLG main fitting.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address higher than expected friction on the NLG shock absorber LBC, which could result in deformation of the LBC's anti-rotation tabs and consequent corrosion of the NLG main fitting. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure of the NLG, which may result in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2025-0093 specifies procedures for repetitive inspections (
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and material referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0093 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0093 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0093 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0093 for compliance will be available at
The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. The manufacturer is analyzing the inspection results to assist in their ongoing investigation and help determine if further corrective actions are needed. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 33 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspections. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by July 7, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and A350-1041 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of higher than expected friction on the nose landing gear (NLG) shock absorber lower bearing carrier (LBC), which could result in deformation of the LBC's anti-rotation tabs and consequent corrosion of the NLG main fitting. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure of
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2025-0093, dated April 24, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0093).
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0093 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2025-0093 refers to October 4, 2024 (the effective date of EASA AD 2024-0188), this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2025-0093 specifies “within the compliance time(s) specified therein”, this AD requires replacing that text with “before further flight”.
(4) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0093.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0093, dated April 24, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary special local regulation for designated areas of the Duluth Harbor entrance to Superior Bay on Lake Superior during the Festival of Sail 2025 event in Duluth, MN. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters around the port of Duluth, MN during a sail festival with tall ships beginning on July 10, 2025, and ending the evening of July 13, 2025. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the designated areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 5, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2025-0023 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Zachary Fedak, Waterways Management, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, U.S. Coast Guard telephone 218-725-3818, email
On June 27, 2024, an organization notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a Festival of Sail event in Duluth, MN from July 10-July 13, 2025. Hazards from spectator vessels and the limited maneuverability of the sailing vessels exist. The Captain of the Port Duluth (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the parade of sail would be a safety concern for anyone within the route of the parade.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the parade route before, during, and after the scheduled event, as well as within a more constrained designated area for the duration of the multi-day event and
The COTP is proposing to establish a temporary special local regulation from 9 a.m. on July 10, 2025 through 9 p.m. on July 13, 2025.
The temporary special local regulation will cover all navigable waters encompassed within the staging area and parade route from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 10, 2025. This will include all waters of Lake Superior and Duluth Harbor bounded by Rice's Point to the west and Duluth to the north, and then within the following boundaries: beginning at position 46°46′48.36″ N, 092°05′16.44″ W; then across Duluth Harbor and turning north to the Duluth Lift Bridge; then out the Duluth Harbor Entrance; then northwest back to the north Duluth Entrance Light, through the canal, then along Minnesota Point; then entering and encompassing the Minnesota Slip; then back out the slip; and then back to the starting point. Additionally, the special local regulation will cover all waters in which the tall ships will be moored from 9 a.m. on July 10, 2025 through 9 p.m. on July 13, 2025. The zone will cover all waters encompassed by a projection extending out southeast from the dock wall along Harbor Drive and southwest from S Lake Avenue. The regulatory text below provides exact coordinates for the zones. No vessel or person who is not approved prior to the event would be permitted to enter the established zones without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The duration of the zones is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the Parade of Sail on July 10, 2025 until the conclusion of the Festival of Sail on July 13, 2025.
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the availability of the Superior Harbor entrance as an alternate entry into Superior Bay, the limited size and short time frame of the special local regulation, and the estimated number of spectator vessels around the Duluth Harbor entrance for the event. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter 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 proposed rule would 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 IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(1) The
(2) The
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by VHF radio on channel 16. Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
(3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through advanced notice via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Notice will also be provided by on-scene designated representatives.
(4) Vessels and persons receiving COTP Duluth or on-scene representative authorization to enter the area of this special local regulation must do so in accordance with the following restrictions:
i. Vessels and persons must transit at a speed not to exceed six (6) knots or at no wake speed, whichever is less. Vessels proceeding under sail will not be allowed in this Area unless also propelled by machinery, due to limited maneuvering ability around numerous other spectator craft viewing the Festival of Sail.
ii. Vessels and persons will not be permitted to impede the Parade of Sail area from 9 a.m. through 2 p.m. on July 10, 2025, once it has commenced, as the tall ships are extremely limited in their ability to maneuver.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone while the U.S. Navy Blue Angels Squadron conducts aerobatic performances over Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. This safety zone is necessary to protect watercrafts and the general public from hazards associated with the U.S. Navy Blue Angels aircraft performing low flying, high powered jet aerobatics over open water. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Honolulu or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2025-0120 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Vivian S. Gonzalez, Waterway Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 808-522-8264, email
On November 12, 2024, Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH) 2025 Airshow coordinators notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting an Air Show that includes an aerial performance “show box” extending beyond the Kaneohe Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on August 8th, 9th, and 10th, 2025. Within this “show box,” the U.S. Navy Blue Angels Squadron will conduct aerobatic performances, exhibiting their aircraft's maximum performance capabilities, over Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii during a 3-day period. Hazards associated within this “show box” during the Squadron's high powered multiple jet aircraft performances include accidental discharge of jet fuel and falling debris. Kaneohe Bay normally experiences heavy waterway traffic during the weekends. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the aerial performance would be a safety concern for anyone within the “show box” that extend beyond the Kaneohe Bay Naval Defensive Sea.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the “show box” before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.
The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on August 8 through August 10, 2025. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within the following points 21°26.159′ N, 157°47.312′ W; then south to 21°25.890′ N, 157°47.250′ W; then northeast to 21°27.943′ N, 157°44.953′ W; then west to 21°28.016′ N, 157°45.250′ W; and returning southwest to the starting point to complete a rectangle. This safety zone would extend from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled aerobatic performances. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Vessels requiring emergency transit through the zone may request permission by contacting the on scene Patrol Commander on VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) or the Sector Honolulu Captain of the Port at telephone number 808-842-2600. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessels will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of Kaneohe Bay. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Vessels will be allowed to transit in and around the temporary safety zones in Kaneohe Bay once permission to enter is granted. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone that extends the Kaneohe Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area on both ends that would prevent vessels from entering the flight paths for the aerobatic performances. Normally such actions are 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 preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 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. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) or the Sector Honolulu Captain of the Port at telephone number 808-842-2600. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
U.S. Department of Education.
Proposed priorities and definitions.
The Secretary proposes three initial and urgent priorities and related definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. These priorities and definitions are intended to replace the Secretary's supplemental priorities published in the
We must receive your comments on or before June 20, 2025.
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Zachary Rogers, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 7W213, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 260-1144. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities and definitions. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
For your comments to have maximum effect in developing the final priorities and definitions, we provide the following tips:
• Be concise but support your claims.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible and avoid using profanity.
• Refer to specific sections and subsections of the proposed priorities and definitions throughout your comments, particularly in any headings that are used to organize your submission.
• Arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed priorities and definitions.
• Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed priorities or definitions and support these reasons with data-driven evidence, including the depth and breadth of your personal and professional experiences.
• Where you disagree with the proposed priorities or definitions, suggest alternatives, including revised priority or definition language, and your rationale for the alternative suggestion.
In instances where individual submissions appear to be duplicates or near duplicates of comments prepared as part of a writing campaign, the Department may choose to post to
Comments containing personal threats will not be posted to
During and after the comment period, you may inspect public comments about the proposed priorities and definitions by accessing
Federal education spending must now prioritize a vital and foundational goal: ensuring that every student in America becomes proficient in reading. Effective evidence-based literacy instruction should be supported by strong or moderate evidence that relates to explicit, systematic, and intentional instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, language structure, reading fluency, and reading comprehension.
It is essential that taxpayer dollars focus on initiatives that directly benefit students through effective literacy instruction and ensure that educator pipelines at the postsecondary level keep evidence-based literacy at the forefront while preparing the educators of tomorrow. It is time for the United States to refocus its education investments on the most essential skill a student can acquire: literacy. The ability to read is the foundation for all learning, unlocking opportunities for academic, professional, and personal achievement and strengthening critical thinking skills essential to lifelong success.
(a) Advance, increase, or expand evidence-based literacy instruction (as defined in this notice), or
(b) Focus on evidence-based literacy instruction (as defined in this notice).
Education choice gives parents, who understand their children's needs best, the ability to make informed decisions about their children's education paths. For this reason, more than a dozen States have enacted universal K-12 scholarship programs,
Education choice applies to all stages of learning, including postsecondary education. Ensuring that students at every age can pursue an education that aligns with their unique needs and career goals is crucial in the pursuit of educational freedom. This can be achieved through flexible options such as competency-based education that allows students to progress through learning at their own pace, short-term workforce-aligned programs or three-year or less degrees, and distance education. Access to education choice in the pursuit of higher education and career readiness is essential.
It is crucial that the Department prioritize the expansion and strengthening of education choice programs at every level. By doing so, we can ensure that all families, regardless of their background or location, have access to the educational opportunities that best serve their children's unique needs.
(a) Increase access to public charter schools and other innovative school models, such as public laboratory schools, public microschools, course-based choice, or regional academies, which may include one or more of the following:
(i) Efforts to expand or replicate existing charter schools that have a record of improving students' academic achievement or have a specific focus on one or more of the following:
(1) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), including computer science,
(2) Career and technical education,
(3) Evidence-based literacy instruction,
(4) Serving students with disabilities and special needs,
(5) Patriotic education, or
(6) Classical education.
(ii) Multi-year plans to create new charter schools.
(iii) Providing Technical Assistance to new or existing charter schools related to authorization, operation, construction, or other relevant areas, including navigating State and local statutes and regulations.
(iv) Opening opportunities for new or existing charter schools to access resources that are currently only available to, or primarily accessed by, district schools in their area.
(b) Expand access to K-12 school options through open enrollment or course-based choice.
(c) Support dissemination of information for all education choice options for students, including private school enrollment, education savings accounts, tax credit scholarships, home-based learning and homeschooling, learning pods and co-ops, public charter schools, and district public schools through open enrollment or course-based choice.
(d) Support state or local development or implementation of education savings accounts.
(e) Support dissemination of information about education savings accounts.
(f) Support families in educating students through home-based education programs, which may include one or more of the following:
(i) Support for online learning communities, or
(ii) Assistance with understanding of State and local requirements for homeschooling.
(g) Provide or expand access to dual or concurrent enrollment programs (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(15)) or early college high schools (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(17)) or other programs where secondary school students begin earning credit toward a postsecondary degree or industry-recognized credential prior to high school graduation.
(h) Expand access to education services that accelerate learning such as high-impact tutoring.
(i) Expand access to military schools or academies.
(j) Expand access to one or more of the following at the high school or postsecondary level:
(i) Distance education,
(ii) Competency-based or skills-based education,
(iii) Pre-apprenticeships,
(iv) Apprenticeships,
(iv) Work-based learning, or
(v) Shortened time-to-degree models.
(k) Expand access to part-time coursework and career preparation.
(l) Expand access to programs or coursework that lead to in-demand, industry-recognized credentials.
Families deserve an education system that reflects the unique needs of the communities in which they live. One-size-fits-all mandates from the federal government create obstacles, limiting the ability of State, Tribal, local, and institutional leaders to make decisions in the best interest of their students and their workforce. Furthermore, centralized planning and oversight power at the federal level adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, siphoning resources away from the classrooms that need them most.
The 10th Amendment wisely reserved constitutional authority for education to the States in order to limit federal overreach. Education decisions should be made at the State level, where local needs, priorities, and circumstances can be fully understood and addressed. This priority is a critical step in achieving the broader goal of educational excellence for all students. States must be empowered to create opportunity through policies that are more responsive, effective, and aligned with the needs of their communities, in order to “empower States to take charge and advocate for and implement what is best for students, families, and educators in their communities.”
(a) State educational agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49)),
(b) Governors,
(c) State workforce development agencies or boards,
(d) State vocational rehabilitation agencies,
(e) State higher education agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1003(22),
(f) Entities identified, designated, or endorsed by a Governor or chief State education official for purposes of implementing the project or proposal,
(g) An Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(e)), Tribal organization (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(l)), or Tribal educational agency (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7452(b)(3)), or
(h) Consortia of the entities identified under this priority.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, securing, and using digital information. In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills and
Computer science does not involve using computers for everyday tasks, such as browsing the internet or using tools like word processors, spreadsheets, or presentation software. Instead, it focuses on creating and developing technology, not just utilizing it.
(a) An evidence framework must include each of the following:
(i) Whether a study is experimental, quasi-experimental, or neither;
(ii) Whether or not a study shows a positive, statistically significant effect on student outcomes or other relevant outcomes;
(iii) Whether or not a study uses outcome measures that demonstrate validity and reliability, that do not give an unfair advantage to participants in one condition over another, and that are measured consistently for the groups or participants that are being compared;
(iv) Whether or not a study design is otherwise of high quality, including whether it minimizes factors outside the intervention that could affect student or other relevant outcomes (confounds) and whether random assignment (if used) was done with integrity; and
(v) Whether or not study implementation and analysis is appropriate, including whether groups or participants being compared demonstrate baseline equivalence on key individual and other relevant characteristics, whether differences in baseline equivalence are statistically controlled, and by considering the impact on the validity of the study of any changes to the sample over time.
(b) An evidence framework may be implemented or verified by one or more of the following:
(i) An organization with relevant expertise that has demonstrated to the Department that it has a rigorous, transparent (
(ii) By peer reviewers with statistical expertise who apply an evidence framework consistent with each aspect identified in (a) in reviewing support for an applicant's assertion that relevant information is strong evidence or moderate evidence, as applicable; or
(iii) By the Department or peer reviewers with statistical expertise who affirm an applicant's assertion that relevant information is strong evidence or moderate evidence because it is supported by studies included in the What Works Clearinghouse in one or more of:
(1) a practice guide;
(2) an intervention report; or
(3) an individual evaluation that is publicly validated as being aligned with strong evidence or moderate evidence, as applicable.
(a) strong evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study (strong evidence as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I)) or
(b) moderate evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study (moderate evidence as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(II)).
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Since this regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, it is not considered an “Executive Order 14192 regulatory action.”
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits;
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing the proposed priorities and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their minimal costs. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined are necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
The proposed priorities would impose no or minimal costs on entities that receive discretionary grant award funds from the Department. Additionally, the benefits of implementing the proposed priorities outweigh any associated costs, to the extent these de minimis costs even exist, because these proposed priorities would result in higher quality grant application submissions that directly improve the educational outcomes of all students. These proposed priorities and definitions will result in significant benefit to the public by improving educational outcomes for all students and ultimately increase the future earnings potential of all students.
Application submission and participation in competitive grant programs that might use these proposed priorities and definitions is voluntary. We believe, based on the Department's administrative experience, that entities preparing an application would not need to expend more resources than they otherwise would have in the absence of these proposed priorities. Therefore, any potential costs to applicants would be de minimis. Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for any eligible applicants that earn a grant award, including small entities. We invite the public to comment on this discussion of estimated costs and benefits. We are specifically interested in high quality comments supported with quantitative data.
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed priorities and definitions, easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?
• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
• Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
• What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
This section considers the effects that the final regulations may have on small entities in the educational sector as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public
The proposed priorities and definitions do not contain information collection requirements or affect the currently approved data collection.
In Proposed Rule document, 2025-06348, appearing on pages 18590 through 18626, in the issue of Wednesday April 30, 2025, make the following correction:
On page 18590, in the first column, in the
In Proposed Rule document, 2025-06317, appearing on pages 18568 through 18587, in the issue of Wednesday April 30, 2025, make the following correction:
On page 18568, in the first column, in the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit stakeholder feedback on potential opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of its repair requirements for gas transmission and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines. PHMSA also seeks stakeholder feedback on authorizing a risk-based approach for determining the inspection interval for in-service breakout tanks.
Comments on this ANPRM must be submitted by July 21, 2025. PHMSA will consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable, consistent with 49 CFR 190.323.
You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number using any of the following ways:
Sayler Palabrica, Transportation Specialist, by telephone (202) 744-0825, or by email at
PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on potential opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of its repair requirements for gas transmission (49 CFR part 192) and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide (49 CFR part 195) pipelines. Many of those requirements—particularly for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines—have not been updated in over two decades, and others do not fully account for recent advancements in pipeline safety technology and best practices or the maturation of PHMSA's regulatory regime. PHMSA is also seeking stakeholder feedback on authorizing risk-based inspection procedures for determining the inspection interval for in-service breakout tanks under part 195. Materials obtained from this ANPRM will inform a forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding.
PHMSA's safety standards for gas transmission lines (49 CFR part 192) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (49 CFR part 195) address the remediation of anomalies in two ways: (1) through a set of traditional, prescriptive remediation requirements in the operation and maintenance provisions that generally apply to all pipelines; and (2) through risk-based, integrity management (IM) requirements that apply to pipeline segments posing risks to “high consequence areas.”
Despite this strong safety record, PHMSA recognizes that some of its repair requirements have not been updated for decades, and that others may not account for the latest advances in pipeline safety technology and industry best practices. PHMSA also recognizes that its repair requirements may need to be updated to align with the significant changes made to part 192 and part 195 in recent rulemaking proceedings.
For example:
• The repair criteria and remediation timelines in part 195 for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines have been relatively static for decades. PHMSA's generally applicable repair requirements at § 195.401 have not been changed substantially since 1981,
• PHMSA most recently addressed part 192 anomaly remediation requirements for gas transmission lines in its August 24, 2022 final rule (a rulemaking initiated following the 2010 incident near San Bruno, CA).
• However, some of these amendments have been remanded to PHMSA for further consideration as a result of subsequent litigation.
In addition, PHMSA regulations at § 195.432 have for nearly four decades imposed a default annual inspection requirement for in-service breakout tanks associated with hazardous liquid pipelines.
Review of PHMSA's repair criteria, timelines, and IM requirements (as well as inspection intervals for breakout tanks on hazardous liquid pipelines) is also consistent with stakeholder recommendations and Presidential mandates. Industry trade organizations have suggested in comments on recent NPRMs that PHMSA may not adequately account for the relationship of related requirements across different rulemaking proceedings.
To develop proposals responding to the above considerations, recommendations, and directives, PHMSA is soliciting stakeholder feedback on, among other things: (1) the topics listed in section III below; (2) potential amendments to its parts 192 and 195 repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM requirements; (3) the appropriateness of those amendments for different types of gas transmission pipelines and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines; (4) the incremental compliance costs and benefits (including benefits pertaining to avoided compliance costs, safety harms, and environmental harms) anticipated from those amendments; and (5) the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of those potential amendments. PHMSA plans to hold a public meeting in the near future to supplement or to clarify the materials received in response to this ANPRM.
With respect to incremental cost and benefit information, PHMSA is seeking per-unit, aggregate, and programmatic (both one-time implementing and recurring) data. Explanation of the bases or methodologies employed in generating cost and benefit data, including data sources and calculations, is valuable so that PHMSA can explain the support for any estimates it is able to provide that accompany a proposed rule, and other commenters may weigh in on the validity and accuracy of the data. Please also identify the baseline (
When responding to a specific question below please note the topic letter and question number in your comment. PHMSA will review and evaluate all comments received, as well as late-filed comments to the extent practicable.
1. Do the anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM regulations for gas transmission pipelines (part 192, subparts M and O) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (§§ 195.401 and 195.452(h)(4)) strike an appropriate balance between safety benefits and compliance costs? If not, should PHMSA consider amending any of those provisions? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit reconsideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
2. Do anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM regulations for gas transmission pipelines (part 192, subparts M and O) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (§§ 195.401 and 195.452(h)(4)) accommodate innovative technologies and methods for the discovery, evaluation, and remediation of anomalies? Are there specific, innovative technologies and methods
3. PHMSA's risk-based IM regulations for gas transmission pipelines (part 192, subpart O) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (§ 195.452(h)(4)) include specific thresholds for particular anomaly types and mandated remediation timelines in a manner consistent with traditional, prescriptive regulatory frameworks. Does that incorporation of traditional, prescriptive elements within PHMSA's risk-based IM regulations yield safety benefits commensurate with the associated reduction in regulatory flexibility and increase in compliance costs to operators? Are there risks associated with prescribed repair conditions and remediation timelines, such as personnel safety and site environmental damage due to repair activity or lost product associated with maintenance-related blowdowns and evacuation? Should PHMSA consider amending any particular provisions in its IM regulations for gas transmission pipelines (part 192, subpart O) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (§ 195.452) to strike a more appropriate balance between safety benefits and compliance costs? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
4. Is it appropriate for repair timelines to begin on the date of “discovery” of anomalies on gas transmission (§§ 192.714(d) and 192.933(b)) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (§§ 195.401(b)(1) and 195.452(h)(2))? How do operators of those pipelines determine the moment of discovery? Should PHMSA consider amending any particular regulatory provisions to improve the clarity or practical implementation of its regulations regarding when a remediation obligation attaches? Please provide the technical, safety, and economic justifications for any suggested revisions.
5. Are there any PHMSA interpretations addressing its anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM regulations for gas transmission pipelines (part 192, subparts M and O) and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines (§§ 195.401 and 194.452(h)(4))
6. Gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipelines are not all identical and may merit distinguishable regulatory requirements regarding the discovery, evaluation, and remediation of anomalies. Are there substantive differences in the characteristics (
7. What types of temporary and permanent repair methods do operators of gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipelines use to comply with PHMSA's anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM requirements? What percentage of repairs are completed using each type of repair method and for which types of anomalies? Do operators employ consensus industry standards or recommended practices (
8. What proportion of small businesses, small organizations, or small government jurisdictions, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 6010
9. Do the annual, incident, and safety-related condition reports required by parts 191 and 195 regulations require the submission of remediation-related information with limited or no safety value for particular categories of gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipelines? Is there information required in the reports that is duplicative with the information required to be submitted to other State or Federal regulatory authorities? What costs would be avoided by eliminating or revising any such reporting requirements?
10. Should PHMSA amend its regulations governing prioritization of anomaly remediation on gas transmission (§ 192.714) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (§ 195.401(b)(3)) to align more closely with its statutory mandate at 49 U.S.C. 108(b) and 49 U.S.C. 60102(a)(1) to prioritize public safety and protection against risks to life and property above other important policy objectives within the scope of its regulatory authority?
Section 195.401 requires repair within a “reasonable time” whenever an operator discovers anomalies on any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines that could adversely affect safe operation. If an anomaly presents an “immediate hazard to persons or property,” the operator may not operate the affected portion until the condition
1. How do operators of different categories of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines approach the discovery, evaluation, and remediation of anomalies on non-HCA segments in complying with repair requirements at § 195.401? Which elements, if any, do operators apply from the IM response criteria and remediation timelines at § 195.452(h) for anomalies discovered on non-HCA segments? Please describe typical costs associated with discovery, evaluation, and remediation of anomalies on non-HCA segments, with as much specificity by anomaly type as possible.
2. Are there alternatives or supplements to the anomaly repair criteria and remediation timelines that should be incorporated into PHMSA's IM regulations? Are there particular anomaly types whose risks justify existing repair criteria and remediation timelines, or even broader repair criteria and more aggressive timelines than specified in PHMSA regulations? Conversely, are there anomalies identified in PHMSA regulations whose lower risks justify different repair criteria or longer remediation timelines than specified in the regulations? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
3. What methods do operators use to evaluate anomalies when material properties of a pipeline segment are unknown? What activities, if any, do operators perform to obtain unknown material property information for anomaly evaluation, and what incremental, per-unit costs are associated with those activities? Are there assumed or conservative values used when material properties are unknown, and what is the technical basis for those values (
4. Should PHMSA consider adopting predicted failure pressure-based criteria for evaluating anomalies on hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines under part 195? If so, what is an appropriate method to predict failure pressure for different types of anomalies on different categories of hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines? Do hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline operators employ a predicted failure pressure-based response criterion for any anomalies on their facilities? Would such an approach be more appropriate for some types of anomalies (
5. Are repair criteria and remediation timelines for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines appropriate for metal loss anomalies on a longitudinal seam for HCA and non-HCA segments? How do operators evaluate metal loss anomalies on a longitudinal seam? Are there innovative technologies or methods for improved evaluation of metal loss anomalies on a longitudinal seam that could justify amendments to the repair criteria for HCA segments at § 195.452? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit reconsideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
6. Are repair criteria and remediation timelines for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines appropriate for dents and mechanical damage anomalies on HCA and non-HCA segments? How do operators evaluate dent and mechanical damage anomalies? Are there innovative technologies or methods (
7. Are repair criteria and remediation timelines for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines appropriate for dents with metal loss or other interacting integrity threats on HCA and non-HCA segments? What technologies or methods could be used to evaluate dent anomalies with metal loss and other interacting threats? Are there any pertinent consensus industry standards or recommended practices that merit evaluation for incorporation by reference in PHMSA regulations? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting them.
1. Are the regulatory requirements at § 192.712(c) governing performance of ECAs for dents and mechanical damage anomalies on gas transmission lines appropriate?
2. Should ECA methodologies or elements thereof within consensus industry standards and recommended practices (
3. What were the incremental, per-unit costs and benefits associated with establishing an ECA program and subsequently conducting each ECA? Were there any cost savings associated with deferred remediation due to the ECA?
4. Are part 192 repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM requirements for gas transmission pipelines appropriate for dents with metal loss or other interacting integrity threats? What technologies or methods could be used to evaluate dent anomalies with metal loss and other interacting threats? Are there any pertinent consensus industry standards or recommended practices that should be incorporated by reference in PHMSA regulations? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
5. Are the re-assessment frequencies for anomalies on gas transmission pipelines (§ 192.712(h)) that have been evaluated using an ECA appropriate? Should PHMSA consider amending those re-assessment intervals to strike a more appropriate balance between safety benefits and costs?
1. How should part 195 regulations address the assessment of and remediation of anomalies on in-service breakout tanks? Would incorporating the risk-based inspection interval provided for in consensus industry standards (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the Fish Lake Valley tui chub (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July 21, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Justin Barrett, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 775-861-6338. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0207 on
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The Fish Lake Valley tui chub's biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns and the locations of any additional populations of this fish;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, its habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be addressing threats to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current status of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
Please include any supplemental information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in
On March 23, 2021, we received a petition, dated March 9, 2021, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) requesting that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub (
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
As discussed above in Peer Review, we received comments from two peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer reviewers generally provided additional references, clarifications, and wording suggestions. We revised the updated SSA report based on the peer reviewers' comments, including adjusting our projections for the future scenarios, clarifying specific points where appropriate, and adding details and suggested references where needed. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and were incorporated into the current SSA report (Service 2024, entire) as appropriate.
Plausible events are those that seem reasonable, have an appearance of truth or reason, and are credible or believable from the perspective of a rational impartial observer (O'Hagan 2019, entire). In an SSA, plausibility would be supported by literature regarding past trends or projections of influences, expert judgment, or other citable evidence and would be relevant, informative, and appropriate within the decision's context. Alternatively, possible refers to a proposition or event that is conceivable and is beyond what a rational impartial observer would consider credible, believable, or reasonable. Therefore, the possible includes lower probability events than the plausible. Future influences that are possible, but not plausible, are not included in the SSA status scenario analysis.
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub (
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is a small minnow native to the Fish Lake Valley basin, which spans the Nevada/California border. The tui chubs in Fish Lake Valley have all been found in Esmeralda County, Nevada, and are geographically isolated from other forms of tui chub. The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is considered a valid subspecies (Hubbs & Miller 1948, p. 44; 87 FR 51635, August 23, 2022; Campbell et al. 2024, p. 8). While the 2021 petition requested that the Service list the Fish Lake Valley tui chub as the taxonomic entity known as
Tui chubs are small minnows with 41 to 64 scales along the decurved lateral line (Moyle 2002, p. 122). Tui chubs have 8 to 24 gill rakers and rounded, short fins (Moyle 2002, p. 122). Coloration varies from silvery to dusky olive, brown, or brassy (Moyle 2002, p. 122). Length of tui chubs is variable, although adults in springs may only reach 4 to 5 inches (10 to 12 centimeters) (Moyle 2002, p. 122). Fish Lake Valley tui chubs from the
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is a narrow endemic subspecies known from six historical sites within Fish Lake Valley (see figure 1 under
The primary life stages for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub are egg, larva, juvenile, and adult. Few specifics are known about the life history of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, and much of what we know regarding the subspecies' life history comes from studies of other tui chub subspecies. Females lay 6,100-68,900 eggs in gravel substrate or aquatic vegetation, and males fertilize them when water temperatures reach 55-72 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (13-22 degrees Celsius (°C)). In warmer springs and ponds, this can be late February through August, but it primarily happens between April and July (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 169; Moyle 2002, p. 125; Vicker 1973, p. 11). Eggs hatch in 3 to 6 days (Moyle 2002, p. 125). After the eggs hatch, the fish are considered to be in the larval stage; this stage generally occurs between February and August, depending on the environmental conditions and timing of spawning. Occasionally male tui chubs sexually mature after 1 year, but most mature at 2 years, with females maturing between 2 and 3 years of age (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 169). In the spring when water temperatures warm, spawning occurs again, restarting the life cycle for the next generation of tui chubs. Tui chubs can live up to 35 years in large lakes, but in smaller ponds and springs, their observed maximum lifespan is 7 years (Moyle 2002, p. 125; Crain and Corcoran 2000, p. 149).
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species.
The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M-Opinion,” available online at
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the status of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, including an assessment of the potential threats to this subspecies. The SSA report does not represent our decision on whether the subspecies should be proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards
To assess the Fish Lake Valley tui chub's viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the Fish Lake Valley tui chub's ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and subspecies levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the subspecies' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated the individual subspecies' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the subspecies' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the subspecies arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the subspecies' future condition, including responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best scientific and commercial data available to characterize viability as the ability of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub to sustain populations in the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0207 on
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the subspecies and its resources, and the threats that influence the subspecies' current and future condition, in order to assess the subspecies' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
To begin this assessment, we focus on the first conservation biology principle of resiliency. For Fish Lake Valley tui chub populations to have sufficient resiliency, the needs of individuals must be met at a large enough scale to address population-level and subspecies-level needs. The Fish Lake Valley tui chub needs sufficient (1) habitat quantity, (2) habitat quality, (3) population growth, and (4) population size to support sustainable populations in a highly variable and unpredictable environment. The individual needs of Fish Lake Valley tui chub are primarily a function of habitat condition and are summarized below in table 1. All Fish Lake Valley tui chub life stages require permanent water bodies with adequate water quality, and they feed on invertebrates and algae. Successful reproduction is dependent on suitable substrates of gravel or aquatic vegetation. Much of the data presented in table 1 is derived from studies of tui chub in general because there are few specific ecological resource needs data available specifically for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Therefore, where we do provide a range of values, the values were determined by studies conducted on similar subspecies; otherwise, the term “adequate” was used for resource needs that are uncertain.
Populations need an abundance of individuals within habitat patches of adequate area and quality to survive and reproduce despite disturbance. For the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, the abundance of individuals depends upon adequate surface water habitat. Having multiple populations increases the subspecies' redundancy and helps mitigate impacts from localized threats. The Fish Lake Valley tui chub needs a sufficient quantity and quality of habitat to sustain populations. The subspecies has historically inhabited a small area, making the amount of suitable habitat important for the resiliency of the subspecies. Quality of habitat depends upon the presence of suitable water temperature and chemical parameters (
For the Fish Lake Valley tui chub to have high viability, the subspecies needs to maintain its representation (adaptive capacity) by having multiple, highly resilient populations (redundancy) to withstand catastrophic events. As a narrow endemic, the Fish Lake Valley tui chub inherently has low redundancy. However, it is still important to have multiple, highly resilient populations to help mitigate impacts from threats and stochastic
We identified agricultural production, lithium mining, geothermal development, changes in habitat management, climate change, and invasive species as the primary threats currently affecting the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. The following discussion provides a summary of the threats and stressors that are affecting or may be affecting the current and future condition of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub throughout some or all of its range. A more detailed description may be found in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 25-36).
Agriculture has been a historically important component of the economy of Fish Lake Valley and continues to this day (Suverly 2001, unpaginated). The principal crop is alfalfa, comprising 58 percent of the total agricultural sales in Esmeralda County, with other hay products constituting another 2 percent (Suverly 2001, unpaginated). Alfalfa is a water-intensive crop, requiring 4.2 feet (1.3 meters) of water per year to be grown in the Fish Lake Valley (Huntington and Allen 2010, p. 252). Between 2008 and 2023, alfalfa crop cover in the Fish Lake Valley hydrologic basin increased nearly 250 percent from 4,509 acres (1,825 hectares) to 11,142 acres (4,509 hectares) (U.S. Department of Agriculture n.d., unpaginated).
Primarily due to groundwater pumping for agricultural use, groundwater levels in Fish Lake Valley have declined up to 2.0 feet (0.6 meter) per year resulting in over 75 feet (23 meters) of drawdown (Esmeralda County 2022, pp. 45, 51) from the late 1960s to about 2010 (Esmeralda County 2022, p. 51), which has significantly reduced Fish Lake Valley tui chub habitat throughout the subspecies' range (NDOW 1991, p. 1; Nevada Division of Natural Heritage (NDNH) 2020, unpaginated; Pedretti et al. 1985b, p. 7; Sada n.d., unpaginated). Groundwater has been pumped for decades for agricultural purposes on both sides of the Nevada/California border within the Fish Lake Valley hydrographic basin. Permitted allocations exceed available water resources, and actual groundwater withdrawals must be reduced within Nevada and California until groundwater withdrawals are sustainable (Esmeralda County 2022, p. 49). In 2023, the Nevada State Engineer's Office assessed the Fish Lake Valley groundwater basin to be overappropriated by 150 to 250 percent of the perennial yield (Nevada Division of Water Resources 2023, p. 7). Ninety-nine percent of the groundwater resources pumped in Fish Lake Valley are devoted to irrigation of agricultural crops (Nevada Division of Water Resources 2019, p. 8). As agricultural production has increased in both the Nevada and California portions of Fish Lake Valley in recent decades, the groundwater level in the Fish Lake Valley basin has continued to decline from groundwater pumping that exceeds annual recharge (Department of Agriculture n.d. unpaginated; Nevada Division of Water Resources 2023, pp. 7-8; Esmeralda County 2022, pp. 49-50). This overdraft is causing the collapse of the aquifer and damaging the ability of the aquifer to store water in the future (Esmeralda County 2022, p. 49).
The drawdown of groundwater has direct negative effects on the habitat of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Surveyors routinely reported (1985, 1989, 1991, 1995, 2001, 2023) desiccation of known tui chub habitats in the central Fish Lake Valley in the late 20th century (NDOW 1991, p. 1; NDNH 2020, unpaginated; Pedretti 1985b, p. 7; Sada n.d., unpaginated; NDOW 2023, pp. 3-6). Fish Lake, the body of water for which the valley is named and that was historically occupied by the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, was affected by human modification of the springhead and reduced flows (NDOW 1991, p. 1). By 1995, a site visit revealed no fish were present as the lake had become too dry (NDNH 2020, unpaginated). Although the lakebed still holds ephemeral water following heavy rains or periods of snowmelt, groundwater levels dropped too low to provide consistent surface water coverage, and, as a result, the tui chubs at Fish Lake were extirpated. Other nearby springs formerly supporting tui chubs have also been affected by groundwater drawdown, with the Pothole Springs and the unnamed springs drying up between the mid-1980s and early 2000s (Pedretti et al. 1985b, p. 7; NDOW 1991, p.1; Sada n.d. unpaginated).
The only currently active large-scale lithium mine in the United States is operating at Silver Peak in Clayton Valley, Nevada, approximately 30 miles (50 kilometers) east of Fish Lake Valley. The Clayton Valley groundwater basin has been permanently losing storage due to groundwater withdrawals for evaporative mineral concentration, the process that has commonly been used for lithium extraction in this area (Esmeralda County 2012, p. 43; Pennington 2021, p. 2). Lithium mining operations have caused water levels in Clayton Valley to decline, with some wells drying completely (Pennington 2021, p. 2). Additional lithium claims have been proposed in Fish Lake Valley, Clayton Valley, and Columbus Salt Marsh (approximately 20 miles (30 kilometers) north of Fish Lake Valley), indicating that lithium mining operations are likely to expand in this area in the future.
Lithium claystone mining was recently permitted to proceed at Rhyolite Ridge, approximately 8 miles (13 kilometers) east of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub site at the McNett spring system (Ioneer 2024, pp. 1-72; Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2024, entire). Claystone mining is an alternative method of extracting lithium through the excavation of ore and processing the ore with acid to leach out the lithium (Ioneer 2024, pp. 1-72). Lithium claystone mining is considered to be less water intensive than the traditional evaporative lithium brine extraction methods (Ioneer 2024, p. i). However, water is still necessary for production of the acid used in the processing facility, for construction of infrastructure, and for dust suppression (Ioneer 2024 pp. 1-72). The Rhyolite Ridge mine proposes to use approximately 4,032 acre-feet (over 4 million cubic meters) of water annually (Ioneer 2024, p. 33). Water necessary for mining operations could include pumping groundwater from Fish Lake Valley to the Rhyolite Ridge mine site (Ioneer 2024, p. 33). In 2023, mining companies began exploratory drilling for lithium resources at the Fish Lake Valley playa, 7 miles (11 kilometers) northeast of the McNett spring system, and seismic surveys have been conducted for lithium resources 2 miles (3 kilometers) east of the McNett spring system (Morella Corporation 2024, p. 8).
Lithium mining in the Fish Lake Valley area is likely to impact groundwater resources in Fish Lake Valley regardless of the type of mines developed in the area, as both lithium brine and claystone mining require substantial groundwater use (Pennington 2021, p. 2; Ioneer 2024, p. 33). In conjunction with continuing agricultural uses and potential geothermal development discussed below, water use for lithium mining will likely exacerbate the already overallocated Fish Lake Valley groundwater basin that supplies water for tui chub habitat in the McNett spring system.
Geothermal energy production has not yet occurred in Fish Lake Valley. However, there has been interest in geothermal development, with multiple active geothermal leases with exploratory wells being drilled in the valley near the tui chub population in the McNett spring system (BLM 2022a, p. 9). The Fish Lake Geothermal Project area is located 0.3 miles (0.5 kilometer) northwest of the McNett spring system, and the project is currently in the early permitting phase, with energy production possible within the next several years (BLM 2023, p. 9). The Lone Mountain Geothermal project area is located 4.1 miles (6.6 kilometers) northeast of the McNett spring system and is also in the early exploration and permitting phase (BLM 2022a, p. 9).
Prior to geothermal development of a particular area, the flow path of water beneath the land surface is usually not known with sufficient detail to understand and prevent surface impacts that may be caused by such development (Sorey 2000, p. 705). However, changes associated with surface expression of thermal waters from geothermal production have been commonly observed, including, but not limited to, changes in water temperature, flow, and water quality (Bonte et al. 2011, pp. 4-8; Chen et al. 2020, pp. 2-6; Kaya et al. 2011, pp. 55-64; Sorey 2000, entire), which could all be direct changes to the necessary parameters of the habitat needs of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Conversely, there have also been geothermal production plants that did not result in any measurable effects to surface water characteristics (Kaya et al. 2011, pp. 55-64; Sorey 2000, p. 706).
In an effort to minimize these changes in water temperature, quantity, and quality, and to maintain pressure of the geothermal reservoir, geothermal fluids may be reinjected into the ground to reheat the used fluids and maintain local geothermal reservoir pressure (U.S. Department of Energy n.d., entire). This practice entails much trial and error in an attempt to equilibrate subsurface reservoir pressure, and it can take several years to understand how a new geothermal field will react to production and reinjection wells (Kaya et al. 2011, pp. 55-64).
The aforementioned type of changes in surface-expressed water temperature and flow from geothermal production areas have been documented in several places in California and Nevada, including the Long Valley Caldera roughly 40 miles (64 kilometers) southwest of Fish Lake Valley (Sorey 2000, entire). For example, the geothermal water component in springs at Hot Creek Fish Hatchery has been reduced by 30 to 40 percent since 1990 (Sorey 2000, p. 706). Geothermal pumping between 1985 and 1998 at Casa Diablo Geothermal Plant, part of Ormat Technologies, Inc., Mammoth Geothermal Complex, resulted in flow ceasing at Colton Spring (1.2 miles (1.9 kilometers) east of Casa Diablo) and declines in water level at Hot Bubbling Pool (3.1 miles (5 kilometers) east of Casa Diablo) (Sorey 2000, p. 706). Similarly, a large geothermal power plant in Jersey Valley, Nevada, located approximately 170 miles (274 kilometers) north of Fish Lake Valley, caused the cessation of a thermal spring flow just 3 years after production began (BLM 2022b, p. 1).
It is also possible that geothermal energy production may have no discernible effect to the local spring systems as has been observed for some projects. For example, at the Casa Diablo Geothermal plant, the project-related decline in thermal component did not result in the lowering of temperature of the thermally influenced Hatchery Springs (2.5 miles (4 kilometers) east of Casa Diablo), probably due to the moderating influence of rock conductivity (Sorey 2000, p. 706). Additionally, the Casa Diablo plant did not produce any change in thermal water discharge of the Hot Creek Gorge, located 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) from the well field, from the period 1988-1998 (Sorey 2000, p. 706).
Preliminary geothermal well pumping tests for the Fish Lake Geothermal Project failed to detect a measurable response in water levels or spring flows within the McNett spring system (UES Consulting Services, Inc. 2024a, p. 16), although a numerical groundwater model predicted minimal project-related drawdown (UES Consulting Services, Inc. 2024b, p. 65). This may be due to the limitation of short-term (approximately 2 months) monitoring or the confounding effects of precipitation events during the testing period (UES Consulting Services, Inc. 2024a, p. 16). It may also be that the geothermal connection at McNett spring system is so diffuse that spring flows are not sensitive to pumping from the geothermal resource (UES Consulting Services, Inc. 2024b, p. 15).
The highly varied effects of geothermal energy production on thermal waters are likely going to depend on many factors including the unique hydrogeology of the project site and methodology used. Springs within the same proximate geographic area or wetland system may respond differently to the geothermal plant, for example, depending on the relative contribution of geothermal fluids to the spring discharge. The hydraulic connection between geothermal reservoirs and shallow groundwater basins cannot be inferred based on distance alone but is rather determined by multiple and synergistic factors such as the presence of faults or fractures, the transmissivity of the underlying material, and other local surface water and/or groundwater extraction.
Despite the variation in potential impacts from geothermal projects on nearby spring systems, for the McNett spring system, the best available information suggests that nearby geothermal development will utilize the source of discharge at the spring. We infer this based on the recorded temperatures and geochemical analyses of the McNett spring system, which indicate that there is some level of geothermal input. During the winter months, water temperatures at the McNett spring system routinely register above the ambient air temperature. For example, in late March of 2021, the water temperature at the main pool was measured as 67 °F (19.3 °C) and the water temperature at an outflow well was 71 °F (21.68 °C) (NDOW 2021, p. 4). The ambient air temperature that day registered 56 °F (13.6 °C) (NDOW 2021, p. 7). Additionally, recent geochemical analysis of fluids from the McNett spring system suggests that the waters are between 7 to 11 percent geothermal in source (UES Consulting Services, Inc. 2024b, p. 144). This is an indication that the habitat within the McNett spring system is partially sustained by the geothermal reservoir.
Even if the springs are only partially supplied by the geothermal reservoir, changes in the pressure or flow paths of groundwater due to nearby geothermal production and injection wells may alter discharge, water temperature, and water quality of surface springs at the McNett spring system, as has been seen elsewhere in Nevada. While short-term flow tests did not detect a response to the spring flows at McNett for the Fish Lake Geothermal Project, longer term pumping associated with the future plant may produce an effect on water quality or spring flows. The combined geothermal pumping associated with two nearby geothermal plants (Fish Lake Geothermal and Lone Mountain) may increase the risk of habitat desiccation or deterioration over time such that the McNett Spring system may no longer support the Fish Lake Valley tui chub; however, there is significant uncertainty that geothermal development will
Historical and recent oversight and management practices at the McNett spring system have resulted in suitable conditions for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub at this one remaining historical site, evidenced by the persistence of a population maintaining around 2,000 individuals for approximately 20 years (NDOW 2002, p. 1; NDOW 2005, p. 1; NDOW 2021, p. 6). Most of the McNett spring system is privately owned and used for cattle grazing (Red Spring Allotment, under grazing permit NV00091). Cooperation between the landowner and NDOW has ensured accurate estimates of the tui chub's current population and the gathering of additional information about the life history of the fish.
Current levels of grazing may have contributed to the current availability of open water at the McNett spring system by preventing encroachment of aquatic vegetation (NDOW 2022, pp. 2-3). In contrast, Lida Pond, which is located on BLM land and falls within the Magruder Mountain Allotment (permit number NV00099), had recently been overutilized by trespass cattle, causing bank erosion and reduction of open water habitat, before the BLM became aware of and excluded the trespass cattle (Strother 2024, pers. comm.). An increase in grazing pressure may result in sedimentation and reduced water quality due to heavy livestock use, while a complete absence of grazing may cause an overgrowth of marshy vegetation at the expense of open water habitat used by the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
Since the early 1990s, the springhead at McNett has been modified with dams and water control structures (NDOW 1991, p. 1). To date, these structures have likely improved Fish Lake Valley tui chub habitat at the site by deepening the main pool where the majority of the tui chubs live, although future property management may not have the same beneficial effects. In the past, and as recently as 1993, surveys by NDOW noted goldfish (
Because there are currently no formal agreements in place protecting the McNett spring system, uncertainty exists regarding the maintenance of habitat conditions conducive for the future persistence of Fish Lake Valley tui chub at this site.
Climate change has already impacted Fish Lake Valley and will continue to do so at an increasing rate in the future. In general, warmer temperatures and greater extremes in precipitation amounts are modeled for this region of the western United States (Marvel et al. 2023, pp. 11-20). Current climate change forecasts for the southwestern United States, including Nevada and California, predict warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation events (both drought and flooding), and increased summer continental drying by the year 2100 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014, entire; Gonzalez et al. 2018, pp. 1109-1110; McAfee et al. 2021, entire; Frankson et al. 2022, entire; Runkle et al. 2022, entire; Marvel et al. 2023, pp. 11-20).
Average annual temperatures have increased almost 1.9 °F (1.1 °C) over the past decade compared to the preindustrial period of 1850-1899, and an increase of 3.6 to 6.7 °F (2.0 °C to 3.7 °C) is predicted to occur by the year 2100 (Garfin et al. 2014, p. 464; Arias et al. 2021, p. 60; Marvel et al. 2023, pp. 10, 29). Mean annual temperature within Fish Lake Valley is projected to increase between 5.7 and 10.3 °F (3.2 and 5.7 °C) by 2100 compared to the historical average, reflecting a pattern where the contiguous United States is warming faster than the global average (Marvel et al. 2023, p. 11). The models are projected under two different emission scenarios: a high emissions scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase into the next century (representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5) and a low emission scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions stabilize by mid-century and then decline to levels seen in the 1990s by the end of the century (RCP4.5).
Increased temperature and more variable precipitation within the range of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub will place additional stress on groundwater resources and aquatic habitat availability. The Fish Lake Valley tui chub now only occurs in sites that are completely dependent on spring outflows. Desert springs support relatively small aquatic systems, as surface flows are sustained by groundwater. The springs range widely in size, temperature, water chemistry, morphology, landscape setting, and persistence. Springs occur where subterranean water under pressure reaches the Earth's surface through fault zones, rock cracks, or orifices that occur when water creates a passage toward the surface. In general, springs are uniquely influenced by aquifer geology, morphology, discharge rates, and regional precipitation. Most valley aquifers in the Great Basin are recharged by springtime runoff during snowmelt from adjacent mountain ranges. Specifically, the White Mountains, which form the north and west boundary of Fish Lake Valley, provide the springtime runoff and recharge to the groundwater basin.
A spring's size is generally a function of discharge, which can be affected by precipitation and evapotranspiration. Also, springs can be characterized as an endpoint in a continuous spectrum of groundwater discharge processes (van der Kamp 1995, pp. 5-6), or points of focused groundwater discharge from groundwater flow systems. These flow systems transport groundwater from recharge areas to discharge areas under the influence of gravity. The rate of spring flow averaged over several years equals the average rate of recharge to the flow systems that feed the spring. The annual rate of groundwater recharge is always less than the annual precipitation and can be estimated on the basis of precipitation and evapotranspiration. Overall, any evapotranspiration loss results in reduced flow from springs, which is the principal reason many small springs dry up entirely during hot, dry weather.
Evapotranspiration is higher for alfalfa in warmer growing regions, meaning that climate change may result in increased groundwater use for continued alfalfa production in Fish Lake Valley in the future (Huntington and Allen 2010, p. 70). In recent decades, reductions in winter precipitation and snowpack have been observed, and this pattern is expected to continue (Garfin et al. 2014, p. 465; Marvel et al. 2023, pp. 11, 22). The frequency and intensity of these reductions have increased on a global scale, and climate change is projected to reduce surface and groundwater resources in most deserts, such as the Great Basin (Marvel et al. 2023, p. 25; IPCC 2014, pp. 14, 77).
Aquatic invasive species have long been demonstrated to have a high impact on range-restricted desert fishes. Invasive species have been noted in the Fish Lake Valley for an extended period of time. Early settlers introduced common carp, bullhead catfish (
As discussed above, goldfish, black bass, and common carp have been introduced in the McNett spring system, although only the goldfish persist there today. Currently, invasive species including bullfrogs and goldfish are located less than 2 miles (3 kilometers) from the McNett spring system at an artificial well and wetland complex known as the Fish Lake Valley Hot Well or “Hot Box,” constructed in the early 1990s for recreational bathing and fishing opportunities (NDOW 1991, p. 2). The 2-mile (3-kilometer) proximity of these invasive species enhances the risk that flash flooding events will allow them to disperse or be intentionally introduced to the McNett spring system. Alternatively, if the Hot Well dried up as a result of water production in the valley, the invasive bullfrogs may disperse to the nearest aquatic habitat, which may include the McNett spring system. Additionally, goldfish and mosquitofish have already been introduced to Lida Pond, where Fish Lake Valley tui chubs were translocated outside of the subspecies' historical range. Lida Pond is especially vulnerable to the introduction of additional invasive species because it may be easily accessed by public roads and it is very close to Indian Spring, 6.6 miles (10.7 kilometers) away, where introduced populations of predatory American bullfrogs, largemouth bass (
Overall, the direct impact of invasive species on the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is difficult to quantify, but in combination with the decline in habitat size and quality due to dewatering, the increased competition with and predation by invasive species are highly likely to affect the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, which evolved without other native fish in Fish Lake Valley (Hubbs 1934, unpaginated).
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is designated as a protected fish species by the State of Nevada (Nevada Administrative Code at section 503.065.1). Protected wildlife species are prohibited from being taken or hunted without authorization from NDOW. However, there are no protections for the habitat of protected species or for indirect killing of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. No known conservation actions have been undertaken for Fish Lake Valley tui chub (NDOW 2012a, p. 19; West 2024, pers. comm.).
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. The best available science indicates that there are synergistic and cumulative interactions among the factors influencing the Fish Lake Valley tui chub's viability. The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is limited to two extremely small populations, one within the historical range and one introduced outside of the historical range. Groundwater decline and reduction in spring flow due to dewatering associated with current and ongoing projects could cause further decline in habitat availability in this already limited habitat. Additionally, increased competition with and predation by invasive species would likely further negatively affect the Fish Lake tui chub by decreasing the quality of the available habitat. Cumulatively, these factors diminish the amount of suitable habitat for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub, thus impacting the subspecies' viability. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors influencing this subspecies, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire subspecies, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is a narrow endemic subspecies known from six historical sites (see table 2, below) within Fish Lake Valley in Esmeralda County, Nevada, and a seventh more recently introduced site outside of the historical range. All but one (McNett spring system) of the six historical sites are now extirpated. A second population was introduced at Lida Pond outside of Fish Lake Valley roughly 39 miles (63 kilometers) southeast of McNett spring system (see figure 1, below). Both sites are spring-fed systems. The year-round flow and relative stability in temperature and water quality provided by the springs (
The McNett spring system is the only extant population of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub within the subspecies' historical range, and available survey data suggest that this population is currently stable. NDOW conducted surveys or visited the McNett spring system in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2021, and 2023. Survey methods varied among years, ranging from visual surveys and dip netting to mark-recapture population estimates. Population estimates for the main spring pool have ranged between 2,143 and 3,278 tui chubs, although the total population size throughout the spring complex is likely larger. The first mark-recapture survey was conducted in 2002, and it estimated a population of 3,278 chubs at this site, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 1,900-6,145 fish (NDOW 2002, p. 1). In 2005, the population was estimated at 2,210 chubs with a 95 percent confidence interval of 1,652-3,032 fish (NDOW 2005, p. 1). In 2007, 554 tui chubs were marked and released, but a population estimate was not conducted due to logistical constraints (NDOW 2007, p. 1). In 2021, mark-recapture survey efforts resulted in an estimated population of 2,143 fish with a 95 percent confidence interval of 1,847-2,485 fish (NDOW 2021, p. 6). However,
Most of the McNett spring system is privately owned and used for grazing cattle. Fencing excludes feral horses from entering the property from adjacent BLM lands. The main spring pool historically measured 23 by 17 feet (7 by 5 meters) with a maximum depth of 3 feet (1 meter); however, the spring was later impounded, which increased the diameter of the pool to 39.0 feet (11.9 meters) (Pedretti et al. 1985a, p. 3; NDOW 1991, p. 1; NDOW 2021, p. 4). On March 23, 2021, the depth of the main pool was measured at 6.2 feet (1.9 meters), and it had a mean temperature of 66.7 °F (19.3 °C) (NDOW 2021, p. 4). Dissolved oxygen ranged from 4.5 to 5.6 mg/L at three sites sampled across the spring complex, with total dissolved solids ranging from 287 to 730 mg/L and conductivity from 404 to 1,081 microsiemens per centimeter (µs/cm) (NDOW 2021, p. 4). Although the main spring pool contains the highest quality habitat, Fish Lake Valley tui chubs are known to disperse throughout the wetland complex.
The primary threat to Fish Lake Valley tui chubs at the McNett spring system is continued groundwater extraction driven by agricultural operations in Fish Lake Valley, which has led to the drying of habitat and extirpation of other tui chub populations (Pothole Springs and unnamed spring) within the valley. In 1950, the well had a flow rate of 195 gallons per minute (gpm) (738 liters per minute) (Eakin 1950, p. 25), and in 2023 to 2024, the flow rate had decreased to 89 to 91 gpm (337 to 344 liters per minute) (UES Consulting Services, Inc. 2024a, p. 9). A numerical groundwater model predicted that the McNett spring system will experience a drawdown of approximately 5 feet (2 meters) within the next 50 years due primarily to existing agricultural pumping within Fish Lake Valley (UES Consulting Services, Inc. 2024b, p. 65). This same model predicts a total reduction in flow of approximately 56 gpm (212 liters per minute) within 50 years, representing an approximate 22 percent reduction in flow (UES Consulting Services, Inc. 2024b, p. 66). There is potential for additional stress on groundwater from the development of nearby geothermal power facilities or lithium mines.
Another major threat to this population is the potential introduction of invasive species. American bullfrogs and goldfish are within 2 miles (3 kilometers) of the McNett spring system, located at a constructed well outflow complex known as the Fish Lake Valley Hot Well (NDOW 2020, p. 4). This outflow complex was constructed in the early 1990s for recreational bathing and fishing opportunities (NDOW 1991, p. 2). NDOW has previously recommended the eradication of nonnative species from the Fish Lake Valley Hot Well for the protection of endemic aquatic species including the Fish Lake Valley tui chub (NDOW 1991, p. 2; NDOW 2020, p. 8). Proximate populations of invasive species can spread to nearby tui chub habitat in large flash flooding events, which may become increasingly common due to anthropogenic climate change. Invasive species may also be deliberately moved by humans to sensitive natural habitats for enhanced recreational opportunities. The current land management and grazing levels at the McNett spring system appear to pose a low risk to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub population, as evidenced by the stable tui chub abundance estimates in the main spring pool.
Fish Lake Valley tui chubs were first reported and collected at Lida Pond in 1993 (NDOW 1993, p. 1). Genetic results indicate that the tui chubs at Lida Pond are Fish Lake Valley tui chubs (Campbell et al. 2024, entire). The site is located at the townsite of Lida on BLM land adjacent to Timbisha Shoshone Tribal lands. Lida Pond is located roughly 4 miles outside of the Fish Lake Valley basin. The best available information suggests that the entire historical range of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub was restricted to the Fish Lake Valley basin. Therefore, the population of Fish Lake Valley tui chub at Lida Pond is outside the subspecies' historical range, likely introduced by humans although details about the introduction are unknown.
No estimates of population size are available for Lida Pond, but 22 Fish Lake Valley tui chubs were collected in 30 minutes of trapping in 2022 (NDOW 2022, p. 1). Presence of tui chubs in Lida Pond was confirmed in 2023 and 2024, based on visual surveys by NDOW, BLM, NDNH, and Service biologists, suggesting that the population has been extant at this site since 1993. It is unknown if the tui chub population at Lida Pond has persisted since the original introduction or if additional introductions of tui chub were made in subsequent years. Lida Pond is a natural spring that has been modified with an earthen berm to create a larger pond. No information is available on habitat quality within Lida Pond (NDOW 2023, p. 10).
Current threats to the tui chub population at Lida Pond include competition from goldfish present in the pond and the spread of emergent vegetation, mainly cattails (
The risk of groundwater depletion leading to desiccation of the spring at Lida Pond is lower relative to sites within Fish Lake Valley. In addition to being in a different groundwater basin, Lida Pond is more than 6,100 feet (1,860 meters) above sea level while the McNett spring system, which is on the Fish Lake Valley floor, is approximately 4,700 feet (1,433 meters) above sea level. Thus, Lida Pond is a farther distance from agricultural operations and has a cooler climate with reduced evapotranspiration (Nevada Division of Water Resources 2023, p. 15).
The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is a narrow endemic subspecies known from six historical sites within Fish Lake Valley in Esmeralda County, Nevada. All but one of the six historical sites are now extirpated due to drying of the aquatic habitat. A second population has been introduced at Lida Pond outside of the subspecies' historical range. The one extant population within Fish Lake Valley (McNett spring system) has remained stable at roughly 2,000 individuals (95 percent confidence interval of 1,652-6,145 individuals) for two decades. Although this observed stability suggests that this population has historically had some resilience to threats such as invasive species and local land management practices, the primary concern is risk of a catastrophic loss of aquatic habitat similar to the loss of Fish Lake and surrounding springs
Although the historical population structure is not known, there has been a large decrease in redundancy and representation due to the drying of Fish Lake and the surrounding water bodies. Resiliency of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub has been reduced such that the subspecies occurs in only a single population within its historical range (McNett spring system) and an introduced location outside its historical range (Lida Pond). The loss of redundancy has left each remaining population vulnerable to catastrophic threats. For example, the extirpation of the historical populations has reduced the connectivity among the two populations such that they cannot disperse from either drying of the spring or the introduction of an invasive competitor or predator, nor can they recolonize after a catastrophic event has taken place.
Representation has been reduced through the loss of connectivity and loss of habitat types, which have reduced the evolutionary potential. These losses compromise the ability of the subspecies to adapt to novel changes in the environment, which increases the risk of extinction. Because the threats that have impacted populations in the past have not been abated, continued groundwater declines and the introduction of invasive species both present a high risk to the current viability of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
As part of the SSA, we also developed two future-condition scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future threats and the projected responses by the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Our scenarios assumed continued or enhanced groundwater declines, occurrence of mining operations extracting groundwater, occurrence of geothermal operations decreasing surface water expression, presence of invasive species leading to extirpation of Fish Lake Valley tui chub, a higher emission scenario (shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP)5-8.5 or RCP8.5) or a lower emission scenario (SSP2-4.5 or RCP4.5), and status quo and alternative property management changes. Because we determined that the current condition of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is consistent with an endangered species (see Determination of Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub's Status, below), we are not presenting the results of the future scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 56-60) for the full analysis of future scenarios.
The Act defines a species as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” as a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the viability of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is currently at risk. Our analysis revealed several threats that have caused the Fish Lake Valley tui chub's range to become greatly reduced, resulting in the majority of its historical habitat becoming uninhabitable. The most important factors affecting the subspecies' current status and trend are the destruction and modification of its aquatic habitat caused by agricultural production or other land management practices (Factor A), effects of climate change (
The primary threat affecting the Fish Lake Valley tui chub currently is the loss of aquatic habitat driven by both diversion of surface water and declines in groundwater levels. This reduction in available water within Fish Lake Valley has historically been driven by agricultural use, which has led to the drying of Fish Lake and the small streams that historically fed the lake. Pressure on limited groundwater resources from changes in habitat management is expected to increase in the near-term future. Springs in Fish Lake Valley are fed by aquifers dependent on snowmelt for recharge. In recent decades, climate change has reduced precipitation and winter snowpack, and thereby has affected groundwater levels in the valley. In combination, these threats are expected to increase the risk that the limited remaining tui chub habitat within Fish Lake Valley (McNett spring system) will become dry.
Although a complete loss of aquatic habitat is the primary concern, decreases in available habitat exacerbate the other threats affecting the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Predation by and competition with invasive species have likely contributed to extirpations of historical tui chub populations, especially in Fish Lake, and invasive species remain a risk for the two extant populations of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Fish Lake Valley tui chubs currently compete with goldfish and mosquitofish in Lida Pond. The proximity of invasive predators, such as American bullfrogs and largemouth bass, means there is a high risk of these predator species becoming introduced and having catastrophic impacts on one or both of the extant Fish Lake Valley tui chub populations. Although the direct impact of invasive species on the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is difficult to quantify, the increased competition with and predation by nonnative, invasive species are considerable current threats to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub.
Resiliency of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub has been reduced such that the subspecies occurs in only a single population within its historical range (McNett spring system). The five other historical populations have been extirpated due to the threats outlined above. The subspecies also occurs in an introduced location outside its historical range (Lida Pond). Both extant sites currently face significant imminent threats, including groundwater decline (McNett spring system) and invasive species (McNett spring system and Lida Pond). The reduction in the subspecies' range (from six sites to one within the historical range) has also reduced redundancy and representation. Both the McNett spring system and Lida Pond are at risk of catastrophic events associated with the current threats to the subspecies. The loss of habitat and
Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. We do not find that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub meets the Act's definition of a threatened species because the Fish Lake Valley tui chub has already shown low levels in current resiliency, redundancy, and representation due to the threats discussed above.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We have determined that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because the Fish Lake Valley tui chub warrants listing as endangered throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with the decision in
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub meets the Act's definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the Fish Lake Valley tui chub as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery outline made available to the public soon after a final listing determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for reclassification from endangered to threatened (“downlisting”) or removal from protected status (“delisting”), and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available on our website as they are completed (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
If the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is listed, funding for recovery actions may be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Nevada would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
Although the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this subspecies. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this subspecies whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7 of the Act is titled, “Interagency Cooperation,” and it mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, formal consultation is required (50 CFR
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub that may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 7 are management of Federal lands administered by the BLM, as well as actions that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the Service's implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for: scientific purposes, enhancing the propagation or survival of the species, or take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist: (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or (ii) the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of “critical habitat.” We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs of the Fish Lake Valley tui chub and the habitat characteristics where this subspecies is located. A careful assessment of the economic impacts that may occur due to a critical habitat designation is still ongoing. Therefore, due to the current lack of data sufficient to perform required analyses, we conclude that the designation of critical habitat for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub is not determinable at this time. The Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation that is not determinable at the time of listing (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is available on the internet at
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this action on May 6, 2025, for publication. On May 16, 2025, Paul Souza authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by June 20, 2025. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Providing information on national supplies of food in refrigerated storage facilities has been the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture since 1914. This service is the outcome of an investigation made by the Department in 1911, in response to allegations that food warehouses were being used by food speculators to “corner the market” and drive up prices paid by consumers. The Secretary of Agriculture recommended that the public should know the amounts of foods in warehouses and that the Department should issue periodic reports on a pre-announced date and time.
General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code title 7, section 2204. This statute specifies that “The Secretary of Agriculture shall procure and preserve all information concerning agriculture which he can obtain . . . by the collection of statistics . . . and shall distribute them among agriculturists.”
General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code title 7, section 2204. This statute specifies that “The Secretary of Agriculture shall procure and preserve all information concerning agriculture which he can obtain . . . by the collection of statistics . . . and shall distribute them among agriculturists.”
Data collected in the Maryland Pesticide Usage Survey will provide the Maryland Dept. of Agriculture (MdDA) with comprehensive information about what pesticides are being used around the state and future surveys will help determine what trends are developing. The data will also help agriculture and industry professionals understand what is being used, and it will provide public and environmental health experts with information that can help them focus their research and monitoring efforts.
The primary use for the Minnesota Pesticide and Fertilizer Survey data will be to allow the Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture (MnDA) staff to evaluate the effectiveness and adoption levels of the voluntary Best Management Practice (BMP) guidelines by periodically summarizing pesticide and fertilizer use statistics at the county level and MnDA management district levels. County level detail is needed because there are different BMPs written for specific Pesticide Management Areas (PMA) based on chemical residue found in ground water or surface water through other monitoring means. Fertilizer data will be summarized under different Nitrogen Best Management Practice Regions based on soil types and a separate monitoring program. Results from the Minnesota Pesticide and Fertilizer Best Management Practices Survey will allow the MnDA staff to promote the voluntary nature of the BMPs by demonstrating the adoption levels and practices farmers are using have remained consistent with the BMP guidelines. If verified, this will avoid the need for any mandatory restrictions on chemical use and/or practices.
The primary use for the Mississippi State University Extension Service's (MSUES) Field Crop Production Practice and Chemical Use Surveys will be to create Enterprise Budgets for corn, cotton, rice, wheat, and soybeans. No chemical use data will be published, but chemical use data are an important part of determining Enterprise Budgets.
The Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy (NLRS) survey will be conducted on an every-other year basis (for odd numbered years) through a cooperative agreement with the Illinois Nutrient Research Education Council, developed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture. The goal of this survey is to produce statistically defensible estimates of several “in field” and “edge of field” practices conducted by Illinois farmers. These practices have been shown to positively impact water quality by reducing runoff and leaching of nutrients into the waters of Illinois. One of the primary goals of the NLRS is to track implementation of these cultural practices over time to measure implementation of the NLRS.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice; correction.
The Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the
Liliana Schiller, Support Services Specialist, at
In the
Notice is hereby given of the withdrawal of the notification of proposed production activity submitted by Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC for its facility in Richmond, Virginia, within FTZ 207. The notification was docketed on February 10, 2025 (90 FR 9709, February 18, 2025). The withdrawal was requested by Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC on May 16, 2025.
PINNACLEMOD LLC submitted a notification of proposed production
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 product is prefabricated modular steel buildings (duty rate is 2.9%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: PEX (crosslinked polyethylene) water supply pipes; plastic fittings for PEX piping system; luxury vinyl tile; plastic baths; plastic shower baths; plastic sinks; plastic washbasins; plastic (vinyl) windows; acoustical underlayment sheets made of SBR foam (rubber); wood flooring; wood doors; magnesium oxide boards; porcelain baths; porcelain sinks; porcelain wash basins; porcelain lavatories; porcelain flush tanks; fiberglass insulation sheets; flat rolled non-alloy zinc coated steel coils, width of 600 mm or more; cast iron sanitary pipes; stainless steel fittings for PEX piping system; steel fabricated structural hold down posts (parts of steel structures); pre-fabricated bathroom pods consisting of steel stud framing covered with gypsum boards, electrical wiring/fixtures, plumbing fixtures, piping, and tiles; pre-fabricated kitchen pods consisting of steel stud framing covered with gypsum boards, electrical wiring/fixtures, plumbing fixtures, piping, and tiles; panelized steel wall frames; panelized steel wall components; pre-fabricated steel wall panels; galvanized steel studs; galvanized steel tracks; steel bolts; steel screws; brass fittings for PEX piping system; air conditioning units; energy recovery ventilator units; control valves for PEX piping system; circuit breakers; electrical switches for household use; electrical outlets for household use; electrical boxes for protecting electrical circuits (metal junction boxes); electrical boxes for protecting electrical circuits (utility boxes); electrical boxes for protecting electrical circuits (square boxes); electrical panel boxes containing circuit breakers voltage not exceeding 1,000 volts; and, light-emitting diode house lights (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.3%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (section 1702), section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 1702, section 232, and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
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 Luke Engan at
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Notice; annual reporting requirements.
This notice is to remind the public that U.S. firms are required to report annually to the Department of Commerce (Commerce) information on contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. U.S. firms are also required to report annually to Commerce information on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which an offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative. This year, such reports must include relevant information from calendar year 2024 and must be submitted to Commerce no later than June 15, 2025.
Submit reports in both hard copy and electronically. Address the hard copy to “Offsets Program Manager, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230, Room 3876, Washington, DC 20230.” Submit electronic copies to
Reports must include relevant information from calendar year 2024 and must be submitted to Commerce no later than June 15, 2025.
Katie Reid, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: 202-482-4506; email:
Section 723(a)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA) (50 U.S.C. 4568), requires the President to submit an annual report to Congress on the impact of offsets on the U.S. defense industrial base. Section 723(a)(2) of the DPA directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to prepare the President's report and to develop and administer the regulations necessary to collect offsets data from U.S. defense exporters.
The authorities of the Secretary regarding offsets have been delegated to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The regulations associated with offsets reporting are set forth in 15 CFR part 701 (Offsets Regulations). Offsets are compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government-to-government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services, as defined by the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR 120 through 130). Offsets are also applicable to certain items controlled on the Commerce Control list (CCL) and with an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) including the numeral “6” as its third character. The CCL is found in supplement no. 1 to part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).
An example of an offset is as follows: a company that is selling a fleet of military aircraft to a foreign government may agree to offset the cost of the aircraft by providing training assistance to plant managers in the purchasing
Commerce's annual report to Congress includes an aggregated summary of the data reported by industry in accordance with the Offsets Regulations and the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4568). As provided by section 723(c) of the DPA, BIS will not publicly disclose individual firm information it receives through offsets reporting unless the firm furnishing the information specifically authorizes public disclosure. The information collected is sorted and organized into an aggregate report of national offsets data and therefore does not identify company-specific information.
To enable BIS to prepare the next annual offsets report reflecting calendar year 2024 data, affected U.S. firms must submit required information on offsets agreements and offsets transactions from calendar year 2024 to BIS no later than June 15, 2025.
Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of partially closed meeting.
The Materials and Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (METAC) advises and assists the Secretary of Commerce and other Federal officials on matters related to export control policies; the METAC will meet to review and discuss these matters. The meeting will be partially closed to the public pursuant to the exemptions under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Government in the Sunshine Act.
The meeting will be held on June 5, 2025, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. eastern time (all times are eastern time). The open session will start at 10 a.m. and end at approximately 12 p.m. The closed session will start at approximately 1 p.m. and end no later than 3 p.m. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the open session should contact
The meeting will be held in Room 3884 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC (enter through the Main Entrance on 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues). The open session will be accessible via teleconference.
Kevin Coyne, Committee Liaison Officer, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
The Materials and Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (METAC) advises and assists the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and other Federal officials and agencies with respect to actions designed to carry out the policy set forth in section 1752 of the Export Control Reform Act. The purpose of the meeting is to have the METAC members and U.S. Government representatives mutually review the updated technical data and policy-driving information that has been gathered.
The open session will include working group reports, open business discussions, and industry presentations. The closed session will include discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference. Registration in advance is required to receive the meeting invite for virtual attendance. Individuals interested in participating virtually should contact
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the open session should contact
To the extent that time permits during the open session, members of the public may present oral statements to the METAC. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of materials to the METAC members, the METAC suggests that members of the public forward their materials prior to the meeting via email to
A Senior Advisor, performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. The exemption is authorized by section 1009(d) of the FACA, which permits the closure of advisory committee meetings, or portions thereof, if the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines such meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). In this case, the applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) are subsection 552b(c)(4), which
If the meeting is cancelled, a cancellation notice will be posted on the TAC website at:
Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of partially closed meeting.
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) advises and assists the Secretary of Commerce and other Federal officials on matters related to export control policies; the RPTAC will meet to review and discuss these matters. The meeting will be partially closed to the public pursuant to the exemptions under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Government in the Sunshine Act.
The meeting will be held on June 10, 2025, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. eastern time (all times are eastern time). The open session will start at 9 a.m. and end at approximately 12 p.m. The closed session will start at approximately 1 p.m. and end no later than 4 p.m. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the open session should contact
The meeting will be held in Room 3884 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC (enter through the Main Entrance on 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues). The open session will be accessible via teleconference.
Kevin Coyne, Committee Liaison Officer, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) advises and assists the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and other Federal officials and agencies with respect to actions designed to carry out the policy set forth in section 1752 of the Export Control Reform Act. The purpose of the meeting is to have the RPTAC members and U.S. Government representatives mutually review the updated technical data and policy-driving information that has been gathered.
The open session will include working group reports, open business discussions, and industry presentations. The closed session will include discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference. Registration in advance is required to receive the meeting invite for virtual attendance. Individuals interested in participating virtually should contact
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the open session should contact
To the extent that time permits during the open session, members of the public may present oral statements to the RPTAC. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of materials to the RPTAC members, the RPTAC suggests that members of the public forward their materials prior to the meeting via email to
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. The exemption is authorized by section 1009(d) of the FACA, which permits the closure of advisory committee meetings, or portions thereof, if the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines such meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). In this case, the applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) are subsection 552b(c)(4), which permits closure to protect trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and subsection 552b(c)(9)(B), which permits closure to protect information that would be likely to disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. The closed session of the meeting will involve committee discussions and guidance regarding U.S. Government strategies and policies.
If the meeting is cancelled, a cancellation notice will be posted on the TAC website at:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable May 14, 2025.
Christopher Doyle at (202) 482-5882 (Angola), Jacob Waddell at (202) 482-1369 (Australia), Caroline Caroll at (202) 482-4948 (the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Laos)), and Brittany Bauer at (202) 482-3860 (Norway), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On April 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of silicon metal from Angola, Australia, Laos, and Norway filed in proper form on behalf of Ferroglobe USA, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon LLC (the petitioners), domestic producers of silicon metal.
Between April 29 and May 6, 2025, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of silicon metal from Angola, Australia, Laos, and Norway are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the silicon metal industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations.
Because the Petitions were filed on April 24, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the Angola, Australia, Laos, and Norway LTFV investigations is April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. The petitioners argued that Commerce should determine in these investigations that Angola and Laos are non-market economies (NMEs) within the meaning of section 771(18)(A) of the Act and should calculate normal value (NV) for both countries in accordance with its NME methodology.
The product covered by these investigations is silicon metal from Angola, Australia, Laos, and Norway. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent LTFV and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS),
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of silicon metal to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of production (FOP) or cost of production (COP) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe silicon metal, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 3, 2025, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 13, 2025, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the each of the LTFV investigations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2024.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports from Australia, Laos, and Norway exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and adverse impact on financial performance.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate LTFV investigations of imports of silicon metal from Angola, Australia, Laos, and Norway. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
For all countries, the petitioners based export price (EP) on the POI average unit values (AUVs) derived from official import statistics for imports of silicon metal from each country.
For Australia and Norway, the petitioners stated that they were unable to obtain home market or third-country pricing information for silicon metal in Australia or Norway to use a basis for NV.
For Angola and Laos, the petitioners provided NV calculations using both the NME and market economy (ME) methodologies.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determinations.
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Angolan and Lao producers/exporters was not reasonably available, under the NME methodology, the petitioners used the production experience and product-specific consumption rates of a U.S. producer of silicon metal as a surrogate to value Angolan and Lao manufacturers' FOPs.
As noted above for Australia and Norway, the petitioners stated that they were unable to obtain home market or third-country prices for silicon metal to use as a basis for NV. Therefore, for Australia and Norway, the petitioners calculated NV based on CV.
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit.
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of silicon metal from Angola, Australia, Laos, and Norway are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for silicon metal from Australia and Norway are 328.89 and 102.08 percent, respectively.
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of silicon metal from Angola, Australia, Laos, and Norway are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of these initiations.
In the Petitions, the petitioners identified three companies in Angola and three companies in Norway as producers and/or exporters of silicon metal.
Following standard practice in LTFV investigations involving market economy countries, in the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large, and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resource, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading(s) listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix.
On May 12, 2025, Commerce released CBP data on imports of silicon metal from Angola and Norway under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In the Petitions, the petitioners identified one company in Australia (
Accordingly, Commerce intends to individually examine all known producers/exporters in the investigations from Australia and Laos (
Upon applying an NME methodology for Angola and Laos, Commerce will consider assigning separate rates to exporters and producers. In order to
Upon applying an NME methodology, Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the governments of Angola, Australia, Laos, and Norway via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of silicon metal from Angola, Australia, Laos, and Norway are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act (
Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), sets a deadline for the submission of cost-based PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a cost-based PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response.
We note that a PMS allegation filed pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) or 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act (
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The scope of these investigations covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations.
Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable May 14, 2025.
Kyle Clahane at (202) 482-5449 (Australia), Shane Subler at (202) 482-6241 (the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Laos)), Mary Kolberg at (202) 482-1785 (Norway), and George McMahon at (202) 482-1167 (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On April 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of silicon metal from Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand filed in proper form on behalf of Ferroglobe USA, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon LLC (the petitioners), domestic producers of silicon metal.
Between April 28 and May 5, 2025, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of Australia (GOA), Government of Laos (GOL), Government of Norway (GON), and Government of Thailand (GOT) (collectively, Governments) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of silicon metal in Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing silicon metal in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as
Because the Petitions were filed on April 24, 2025, the period of investigation for the Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand CVD investigations is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
The product covered by these investigations is silicon metal from Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOA, GOL, GON, and GOT of the receipt of the Petitions and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2024.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.
Because Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Australia, Laos, Norway, and/or Thailand materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports from Australia, Laos, and Norway exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
With respect to Thailand, while the allegedly subsidized imports do not exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility,
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and adverse impact on financial performance.
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of silicon metal from Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOA, GOL, GON, and GOT, respectively. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on nine of the nine programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 12 of the 14 programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 11 of the 11 programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 16 of the 16 programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
In the Petitions, the petitioners identified one company in Australia (
Accordingly, Commerce intends to individually examine all known producers/exporters in the investigations from Australia, Laos, and Thailand (
In the Petitions, the petitioners identified three companies in Norway as producers and/or exporters of silicon metal.
On May 12, 2025, Commerce released CBP data on imports of silicon metal from Norway under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the GOA, GOL, GON, and GOT via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of silicon metal from Australia, Laos, Norway, and/or Thailand are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors of production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The scope of these investigations covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations.
Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy for the period of review (POR) February 1, 2024, through January 31, 2025.
Applicable May 21, 2025.
Natasia Harrison, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1240.
On February 3, 2025, Commerce published in the
On March 28, 2025, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the
On April 3, 2025, we placed on the record U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for entries of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy during the POR, showing no reviewable POR entries.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. Commerce received a request from the petitioner for an administrative review of: (1) Filmag Italia, SpA (Filmag) and (2) Tectubi Raccordi SpA (including its affiliates, Raccordi Forgiati S.r.l. and Allied International S.r.l.).
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an AD order when there are no entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
As Commerce has proceeded to a final rescission of this administrative review, no cash deposit rates will change. Accordingly, the current cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy. ADs shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit rate of estimated ADs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of the APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published a notice in the
Brian Warnes, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0028.
On March 11, 2025, Commerce published in the
Further, on May 8, 2025, Commerce published in the
In the
In the
Also in FR Doc 2025-80889, on page 19469, in the table under the heading “Estimated CVD Subsidy Rates,” correct the first line of the table from the misspelled name of “Henan Aluminum Corporation” to Henan Aluminium Corporation, and add a footnote to the corrected name, as follows:
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 705(a) and 706(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1) and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before July 21, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to William Stahnke, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Office of International Affairs, Trade, and Commerce (IATC), 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1200, Long Beach, CA 90802, (562) 980-4088 or
This request is for the revision and extension of OMB Control Number: 0648-0335, sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of International Affairs, Trade, and Commerce (IATC). This collection is being revised to transfer five (5) information collections currently included under OMB Control Number: 0648-0387, which is sponsored by the NMFS West Coast Region (WCR), to Control Number 0648-0335 to more accurately reflect how the information is actually being managed. All information collections referenced will be renewed under 0648-0335 going forward. There are no substantive changes to the information collection under 0648-0335 or those being brought over from 0648-0387. The five collections of information from 0648-0387 will be removed from that collection at the next renewal.
The information collected under 0648-0335, required by the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA), amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361
The five information collections from 0648-0387 being merged into 0648-0335 are required by the IDCPA (16 U.S.C. 1414), which amended the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) (16 U.S.C. 1385). The IDCPA and the DPCIA,
For the existing information collection under OMB Control Number 0648-0335, importing respondents are required to submit the form electronically to the CBP before or at the time of importation via the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), as per regulations at 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2). Domestic processors typically submit the forms monthly via email, as per regulations at 50 CFR 216.93(d)(2).
There are no U.S. forms/templates for the information collections being brought over from OMB Control Number 0648-0387. The information will be collected electronically through email or other secure transmission platforms as appropriate. Implementing regulations are found at 50 CFR 216.91 and 50 CFR 216.93.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Seward Freight Dock construction project in Seward, Alaska.
This authorization is effective from November 1, 2026, through October 31, 2027.
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Among the exceptions is section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Specifically, NMFS will issue an IHA if it 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, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definition of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS' implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
On April 4, 2025, a notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to ARRC for take of marine mammals incidental to the Seward Freight Dock construction project in Seward, Alaska was published in the
No substantive comments were received during the public comment period. With the exception of the minor changes described below, there are no changes to the specified activity, the species taken, the proposed numbers, type, or methods of take, or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in the proposed IHA notice. No new information that would change any of the preliminary analyses, conclusions, or determinations in the proposed IHA notice has become available since that notice was published and, therefore, the preliminary analyses, conclusions, and determinations included in the proposed IHA are considered final.
Changes have been made to correct typographical errors to Tables 5 and 7 in the proposed
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is authorizing take of the following distinct population segments: Western U.S. Steller sea lion, Western North Pacific humpback whale, the Mexico humpback whale, and fin whale, which are listed under the ESA. The Permit and Conservation Division completed a section 7 consultation with the Alaska Regional Office for the issuance of this IHA. The Alaska Regional Office's biological opinion states that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species.
Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS has issued an IHA to ARRC for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Seward Freight Dock construction project in Seward, Alaska.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The required information is used to evaluate the impacts that research and enhancement activities have on endangered species, to make the determinations required by the ESA before issuing any such permit, and to establish appropriate permit conditions. To issue permits under ESA section 10(a)(1)(A), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must determine that (1) such exceptions were applied for in good faith, (2) if granted and exercised, will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species, and (3) will be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the ESA. This collection is not being revised in any way.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
NMFS has received a request from the Haines Borough for the reissuance of a previously issued incidental harassment authorization (IHA) with the only change being effective dates. The initial IHA authorized take of six species of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to construction activities associated with the Lutak Dock Replacement project in Haines, Alaska. The project has been delayed by 1 year and none of the work covered in the initial IHA has been conducted. The initial IHA was effective from June 1, 2024 through May 31, 2025. The Haines Borough has requested reissuance with new effective dates of June 1, 2025 through May 31, 2026. The scope of the activities and anticipated effects remain the same, authorized take numbers are not changed, and the required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting remains the same as included in the initial IHA. NMFS is, therefore, issuing a second identical IHA to cover the incidental take analyzed and authorized in the initial IHA.
This authorization is effective from June 1, 2025 through May 31, 2026.
An electronic copy of the final 2024 IHA previously issued to Haines Borough, the Haines Borough's application, and the
Craig Cockrell, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 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.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, 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).
On February 16, 2024, NMFS published final notice of our issuance of an IHA authorizing take of marine mammals incidental to the Lutak Dock Replacement project in Haines, Alaska (89 FR 12306). The effective dates of that IHA were June 1, 2024 through May 31, 2025. On March 18, 2025, Haines Borough informed NMFS that the project would be delayed by one year. None of the work identified in the initial IHA (
The planned activities (including mitigation, monitoring, and reporting), authorized incidental take, and anticipated impacts on the affected stocks are the same as those analyzed and authorized through the previously issued IHA.
Haines Borough will encapsulate the existing Lutak Dock structure with a new dock structure of similar design. In-water construction activities associated with the project will include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal, and down the hole drilling installation. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the initial IHA. The mitigation and monitoring are also as prescribed in the initial IHA.
Species that are expected to be taken by the planned activity include humpback whale (
We refer to the documents related to the previously issued IHA, which include the
Haines Borough will conduct activities as analyzed in the initial 2024 IHA. As described above, the number of authorized takes of the same species and stocks of marine mammals are identical to the numbers that were found to meet the negligible impact small numbers standards and authorized under the initial IHA and no new information has emerged that would change those findings. The reissued 2024 IHA includes identical required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures as the initial IHA, and there is no new information suggesting that our analyses or findings should change.
Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; and (4) Haines Borough's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Accordingly, NMFS determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this reissued IHA.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
The effects of this proposed Federal action were adequately analyzed in NMFS' Biological Opinion for the Port of Nome Modification Project, dated February 6, 2024, which concluded that the take NMFS proposed to authorize through this IHA would not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify any designated critical habitat.
NMFS has issued an IHA to Haines Borough for in-water construction activities associated with the specified activity from June 1, 2025 through May 31, 2026. All previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements from the initial 2024 IHA are incorporated.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension and revision of an existing information collection: 0651-0069 (Patent Review and Derivation Proceedings). The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comments preceding submission of the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To ensure consideration, you must submit comments regarding this information collection on or before July 21, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Michael P. Tierney, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, at: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; 571-272-4676; or
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which was enacted into law on September 16, 2011, changed the procedures of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board,” formerly the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences). These changes included the introduction of
The USPTO's projections are based on data from the past year. The USPTO recognizes that the numbers may fluctuate given interim changes to the institution process. The USPTO has adjusted the estimated burden hours and the number of estimated filings based on recent changes to these proceedings.
This collection covers information submitted by the public to petition the Board to initiate an
Applicants must submit the information electronically using Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System filing system. Parties may seek authorization to submit a filing by means other than electronic filing pursuant to 42 CFR 42.6(b)(2).
The filing fees for this information collection are listed in the table below.
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:
(a) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) 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,
All comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The USPTO will include or summarize each comment in the request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including an address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in a comment, be aware that the entire comment—including PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask in your comment to withhold PII from public view, the USPTO cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension and revision of an existing information collection: 0651-0035 (Representative and Address Provisions). The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comments preceding submission of the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To ensure consideration, you must submit comments regarding this information collection on or before July 21, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Jeffrey West, Senior Legal Advisor, at: United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; 571-272-2226; or
This information collection includes the information necessary to submit a request to grant or revoke power of attorney for an application, patent, or reexamination proceeding, and for a registered practitioner to withdraw as attorney or agent of record. This also includes the information necessary to change the correspondence address for an application, patent, or reexamination proceeding, to request a Customer Number and manage the correspondence address and list of practitioners associated with a Customer Number, and to designate or change the correspondence address or fee address for one or more patents or applications by using a Customer Number.
Under 35 U.S.C. 2 and 37 CFR 1.31 and 1.32, power of attorney may be granted to one or more joint inventors or a person who is registered to practice before the USPTO to act in an application or a patent. For an application filed before September 16, 2012, or for a patent which issued from an application filed before September 16, 2012, power of attorney may be granted by the applicant for patent (as set forth in 37 CFR 1.41(b) (pre-AIA)) or the assignee of the entire interest of the applicant. For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, or for a patent which issued from an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, power of attorney may be granted by the applicant for patent (as set forth in 37 CFR 1.42) or the patent owner. The USPTO provides two different versions of most forms for establishing power of attorney based upon whether the application was filed before September 16, 2012 or was filed on or after September 16, 2012. Providing forms based upon whether the application was filed before September 16, 2012 or was filed on or after September 16, 2012 reduces applicants' burden in having to determine the appropriate power of attorney requirements for a given application.
37 CFR 1.36 provides for the revocation of a power of attorney at any stage in the proceedings of a case. 37 CFR 1.36 also provides a path by which a registered patent attorney or patent agent who has been given a power of attorney may withdraw as attorney or agent of record.
A Customer Number is a unique number created by the USPTO and is used instead of a physical address. The Customer Number allows a group of filings to be associated with a single correspondence mailing address. The USPTO's Customer Number practice permits applicants, patent owners, assignees, and practitioners of record, or the representatives of record for a number of applications or patents, to change the correspondence address of a patent application or patent with one change request instead of filing separate requests for each patent or application. Any changes to the address or practitioner information associated with a Customer Number will be applied to all patents and applications associated with said Customer Number.
Changes of correspondence address or power of attorney may be filed separately for each patent or application without using a Customer Number. However, a valid Customer Number provides secure access to patent information through the registered
Items in this information collection may be submitted as online submissions or by mail, fax, or hand delivery.
2024 National Utilization & Compensation Report Executive Summary published by the National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA); pg. 2. The USPTO uses the average billing rate for paralegals/paraprofessionals, which is $134 per hour (
The two petitions in this information collection have associated filing fees under 37 CFR 1.17(f), these fees are listed in the table below.
Although the USPTO prefers that the items in this information collection be submitted electronically, responses may be submitted by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO estimates that 1% of the 182,085 items will be submitted via postal mail, resulting in 1,821 mailed items. The USPTO estimates that the average postage cost for a mailed submission, using a Priority Mail legal flat rate envelope, will be $10.40. Therefore, the USPTO estimates the total mailing costs for this information collection at $18,938.
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:
(a) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) 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,
All comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The USPTO will include or summarize each comment in the request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including an address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in a comment, be aware that the entire comment—including PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While one may ask in one's comment to withhold PII from public view, the USPTO cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 20, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Matt Soldner, 202-453-7441.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This request is to collect EDFacts data for the 2025-26, 2026-27, and 2027-28 school years. Due to overlap in the timing of data collection activities between consecutive years of the EDFacts collection, we are carrying over in this submission the approved SY 2024-25 data collection, which is scheduled to end in February 2026.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to § 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. This application has been accepted for filing but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n.
The Stillwater Project operates in a run-of-river mode with a minimum flow of 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) provided year-round over the east section of the flashboards. The fish bypass system adjacent to the downstream end of the trashrack provides a year-round flow of 104 cfs for downstream fish passage. The Stillwater Project has an average annual generation of approximately 14,860 megawatt-hours.
o. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
p.
Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the Tower and Kleber Hydroelectric Project No. 10615. The project is located on the Black River in Cheboygan County, Michigan. Commission staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 30, 2025.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP by telephone at (202) 502-6595 or by email at
For further information, contact Arash Barsari by telephone at (202) 502-6207 or by email at
Take notice that on April 17, 2025, Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC submitted its tariff filing: Oncor Tariff Rate Changes, to be effective March 25, 2025.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
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 strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, protests, recommendations, and terms and conditions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
m.
n.
o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
p.
q.
r. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, Tribal members, and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community 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 following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
Brookfield currently operates the project in a run-of-river mode by typically limiting impoundment drawdowns to no more than 1 foot below the normal elevation of 168.17 feet. However, the project is licensed to operate with up to four feet of impoundment drawdowns. The current license requires Brookfield to release a minimum flow of 1,430 cfs or inflow, whichever is less. Brookfield states that it meets this requirement by releasing 50 cfs from the impoundment to the Lewiston Canal System and 1,380 cfs to the river downstream of the project. The maximum hydraulic capacity of the project's generating units is 6,600 cfs and the minimum hydraulic capacity of a single unit is approximately 800 cfs.
The licensee is proposing to remove an existing building from the project boundary. The building is a non-project facility and is located near the Canal Gatehouse. The building is privately owned and serves no project purpose, according to Brookfield's application. In total, this change will remove 0.08 acre from the project boundary, resulting in a total of 237.88 acres remaining within the project boundary.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website (
You may also register at
n.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Take notice that on May 13, 2025, Louisiana LNG Infrastructure LLC (Louisiana LNG) and Driftwood Pipeline LLC (Driftwood Pipeline) (collectively, the Applicants) requested that the Commission grant an extension of time, until December 31, 2029, to construct and place into service its Woodside Louisiana LNG Project (Project) located in Evangeline, Acadia, Jefferson, Davis, and Calcasieu Parishes, Louisiana as authorized in the Order Granting Authorization Under Section 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (Order).
On February 15, 2024, the Commission granted the Applicants an extension of time, until April 18, 2029, to complete construction of the Project and make it available for service.
Since April 4, 2022, the Project has been actively under construction. On April 29, 2025, Woodside Energy Group Ltd announced that it had made a positive final investment decision for the foundation development of the Project, which includes the first three liquefaction trains and common infrastructure. The Applicants and Bechtel Energy Inc. have determined a minor extension of time is required in order to support additional equity sell-downs, as well as offtake agreements and other agreements with third parties to progress the development of the Project.
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on the Applicants' request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.10).
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for NGA facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
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 strongly encourages electronic filings of comments in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice; correction.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published in the
Kayla Williams, (202) 502-6468.
In the
Take notice that the commission received the following accounting Request filings:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organization, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members, and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
You may also register online at
n.
o.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice of adoption of multiple Categorical Exclusions from the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) is adopting multiple categorical exclusions (CEs) from the agencies as listed: Tennessee Valley Authority CEs 49 and 50. This notice identifies the categories of proposed actions and describes the consultation between the agencies.
The CEs identified below are available for EXIM to use for its proposed actions effective May 21, 2025.
Scott Condren (VP Policy Analysis),
The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to interpret and administer Federal policies, regulations, and laws in accordance with NEPA's policies and to consider environmental values in their decision making.
Section 102(2) of NEPA requires Federal agencies to provide a detailed statement on proposals for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Categorical exclusions (CEs) can be used when there is a determination the proposed type of action would not have a significant effect on the human environment; this option eliminates the need for an environmental assessment (EA) or more detailed environmental impact statement (EIS).
Section 109 of NEPA, enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, allows a Federal agency to “adopt” or use another agency's CEs for a category of proposed agency actions.
As the official export credit agency of the United States, “the mission of the Export-Import Bank of the United States is to support the creation of American jobs by facilitating the export of U.S. goods and services.” The Export—Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) steps in when the private sector does not provide financing for American businesses. The Bank's actions have historically helped support these firms in competing with foreign businesses overseas. The Make More in America (MMIA) initiative applies EXIM's authorities for medium and long-term (MLT) loans, loan guarantees, and insurance to export-oriented domestic projects. In doing so, MMIA allows EXIM to support American business during the whole export lifecycle. The purpose of such loans remains unchanged: to support U.S. employment.
As EXIM usually lends to projects outside the United States, NEPA has not often been applicable as there is no impact to the human environment in the United States. In the MMIA initiative, which focuses on domestic lending, adopting CEs from another agency will speed up the processing time of deals and conserve staff resources with no need for an EA or EIS. Faster processing times in this initiative will greatly facilitate EXIM's support of American businesses and workers.
49. Financial assistance including, but not limited to, approving and administering grants, loans and rebates for the renovation or minor upgrading of existing facilities, established or developing industrial parks, or existing infrastructure; the extension of infrastructure; geotechnical boring; and construction of commercial and light industrial buildings. Generally, such assistance supports actions that physically disturb no more than 10 acres of land not previously disturbed by human activity or no more than 25 acres of land so disturbed.
50. Financial assistance for the following actions: Approving and administering grants, loans and rebates for continued operations or purchase of existing facilities and infrastructure for uses substantially the same as the current use; purchasing, installing, and replacing equipment or machinery at existing facilities; and completing engineering designs, architectural drawings, surveys, and site assessments (except when tree clearing, geotechnical boring, or other land disturbance would occur).
The Tennessee Valley Authority CEs also include extraordinary circumstances that should require special factors to review the application of CEs under 18 CFR 1318.201. These extraordinary circumstances include if the action is or may be highly controversial or has the potential to significantly impact environmental resources, including the following resources:
(i) Species listed or proposed to be listed under the Endangered Species Act, or the proposed or designated Critical Habitat for these species,
(ii) Wetlands or floodplains,
(iii) Cultural or historical resources,
(iv) Areas having special designation or recognition such as wild and scenic rivers, parklands, or wilderness areas, and
(v) Important farmland.
EXIM intends to apply these categorical exclusions to loans, loan guarantees, and insurance transactions. The scope of projects would be akin to projects to which the Tennessee Valley Authority has applied these categorical exclusions. These include limited construction, full disposal of buildings, desk work for feasibility studies, soil testing, etc. In principle, such transactions would be similar and comparable to those EXIM's export finance transactions deemed a category C under its environmental and social procedures and guidelines.
In assessing whether a categorical exclusion applies, EXIM would review whether there were extraordinary circumstances that would indicate a categorical exclusion is not appropriate due to the potential for a significant environmental effect. EXIM would review that proposed actions do not breach the extraordinary circumstances listed by TVA. When applying these CEs, EXIM will consider whether the proposed action has the potential to result in significant effects as described in TVA's definition of extraordinary circumstances, as written above.
EXIM's Engineering and Environment Division will have responsibility for determining if a categorical exclusion applies. These determinations will be posted at
In May 2025, EXIM conducted consultation with the Tennessee Valley Authority on adoption of two CE categories. EXIM and TVA's consultation included a review of TVA's experience developing and applying the CEs, as well as the types of actions for which EXIM plans to utilize the CEs. These EXIM actions are similar to the type of projects that TVA funds and therefore the impacts of EXIM projects will be similar to the impacts of TVA projects, which are not significant, absent the existence of extraordinary circumstances that could involve potentially significant impacts. Therefore, EXIM has determined that its proposed use of the CEs as described in this notice would be appropriate.
This notice serves to identify to the public and document EXIM's adoption of two CEs from the Tennessee Valley Authority. The notice identifies the types of actions to which EXIM will apply the CE, as well as the considerations that EXIM will use in determining whether an action is within the scope of the CE.
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Accounting Standards Implementation Board (ASIC), a subcommittee of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), has released for public comment an exposure draft of a proposed Technical Release titled
Written comments are requested by June 30, 2025.
The exposure draft is available on the FASAB website at
Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to the Secretary by email at
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by July 21, 2025.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2. By
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
This form would be completed by Medicare beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers (typically their billing clerk, or billing company), and any party who wish to appoint a representative to assist them with their initial Medicare claims determinations and filing appeals on Medicare claims. The information supplied on the form is reviewed by Medicare claims and appeals adjudicators. The adjudicators make determinations whether the form was completed accurately, and if the form is correct and accepted, the form is appended to the claim or appeal that it was filed with
3.
4.
The information collection requirements included in the DOL claims procedure regulation and the Appeals regulation ensure that claimants receive clear and adequate information regarding the plan's claims procedures and the plan's handling of specific benefit claims. This transparency enables claimants to understand plan procedures and decisions, allowing them to effectively request benefits and appeal denied claims when necessary. The information collected in connection with the HHS-administered federal external review process is collected by HHS and is used to provide claimants with an independent external review, ensuring a fair and impartial assessment of denied health benefit claims.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by June 20, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
All contracting organizations must submit audited annual financial statements once per year. In addition to the annual submission audited, Health Plans with a negative net worth and/or a net loss and the amount of that loss is greater than one-half of the organization's total net worth submit quarterly financial statements for fiscal soundness monitoring. Part D organizations are required to submit three (3) quarterly financial statements. Lastly, PACE organizations are required to file four (4) quarterly financial statements for the first three (3) years in the program. After the first three (3) years, PACE organizations with a negative net worth and/or a net loss and the amount of that loss is greater than one-half of the organization's total net worth must submit quarterly financial statements for fiscal soundness monitoring.
2.
States can choose to establish and operate a State-based Exchange (SBE) or a State-based Exchange on the Federal Platform (SBE-FP). States electing to operate as an SBE-FP rely on the Federal Healthcare.gov platform to carry out eligibility and enrollment functions. For states that do not elect to operate either an SBE or SBE-FP, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will establish and operate a Federally-facilitated Exchange (FFE) in those states.
Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is proposing to reissue an information collection to request information from interested states for the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) pilot program. This request is proposed under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #: 0970-0531 and is a reissuing of a previously approved information collection to select states for the FRA pilot program.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
ACF received approval for a previous information collection (Title: Fiscal Responsibility Act TANF Pilot Program; OMB #: 0970-0531) on July 17, 2024. Twenty-three states and territories responded to the information collection from July through September 2024. In November 2024, ACF announced the selection of five states to participate in the FRA TANF Pilot Program. In March 2025, the Trump Administration announced a new direction for the FRA TANF Pilot Program, ending pilot participation for the states selected in November of 2024 and communicating plans to issue a new request for pilot proposals aligned with the Administration's focus on promoting work and reducing dependency and the key measures of success related to those priorities. This new request to OMB is to collect information from states about their interest and suitability for participation in the new direction being taken for the FRA TANF Pilot Program.
OFA also intends to provide programmatic technical assistance (TA) to the pilot states. ACF's Office of
The Proposal for TANF Pilot Program Participation is intentionally succinct and will be considered in combination with existing sources of administrative data. Therefore, ACF estimates that a state will spend approximately 10 hours compiling information and responding to the request. In the first issuing of this information collection in July 2024, ACF received responses from 23 states and territories. The estimated number of respondents in the table below is based on the number of responses received in the first round and ACF's expectations for number of responses in the second round.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a new draft guidance for industry entitled “Draft Guidance on Roflumilast.” The new draft guidance, when finalized, will provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for roflumilast topical cream.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 21, 2025 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Joseph Kotsybar, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 3623A, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-1062,
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. This notice announces the availability of a new draft product-specific guidance on generic roflumilast topical cream.
FDA initially approved new drug application (NDA) 215985 ZORYVE (roflumilast) topical cream, 0.3 percent, in July 2022. FDA approved NDA 215985 ZORYVE (roflumilast) topical cream, 0.15 percent, in July 2024. We are now issuing a draft guidance for industry on, among other things, BE recommendations for generic roflumilast topical cream (“Draft Guidance on Roflumilast”).
In December 2023, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc. (Arcutis) submitted a citizen petition requesting, among other things, that FDA not approve any ANDA referencing ZORYVE (roflumilast) topical cream, unless certain criteria are met and that FDA issue a product-specific guidance for roflumilast topical cream, 0.3 percent, that recommends studies consistent with those requested in the petition (Docket No. FDA-2023-P-5364, available at
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Draft Guidance on Roflumilast.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. As we develop any final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on the applicability of Executive Order 14192, per OMB guidance M-25-20, and in particular, on any costs or cost savings.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for investigational new drugs have been approved under 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for applications for FDA approval to market a new drug and in 21 CFR part 320 for bioavailability and bioequivalence requirements have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of additional draft and revised draft product-specific guidances. The draft guidances provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). In the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 21, 2025 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Joseph Kotsybar, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 3623A, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-1062,
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. Under that process, draft guidances are posted on FDA's website and announced periodically in the
FDA is announcing the availability of new draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
FDA is announcing the availability of revised draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
For a complete history of previously published
These draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Product-Specific Guidances.” They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. As we develop any final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on the applicability of Executive Order 14192, per OMB guidance M-25-20, and in particular, on any costs or cost savings.
While these guidances contain no collection of information, they do refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for investigational new drugs have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for applications for FDA approval to market a new drug and in 21 CFR part 320 for bioavailability and bioequivalence requirements have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a new draft guidance for industry entitled “Draft Guidance on Fluticasone Propionate.” The new draft guidance, when finalized, will provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for fluticasone propionate nasal spray, metered.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 21, 2025 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Joseph Kotsybar, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 3623A, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-1062,
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. This notice announces the availability of a new draft product-specific guidance on generic fluticasone propionate nasal spray, metered.
FDA initially approved new drug application (NDA) 209022 XHANCE (fluticasone propionate) nasal spray, metered, in September 2017. We are now issuing a draft guidance for industry on, among other things, BE recommendations for generic fluticasone propionate nasal spray,
In May 2021, Optinose US, Inc. (OptiNose) submitted a citizen petition requesting, among other things, that FDA not approve an ANDA referencing XHANCE (fluticasone propionate) nasal spray, metered, unless the applicant demonstrates bioequivalence and therapeutic equivalence through certain studies, and that FDA issue a product-specific guidance for fluticasone propionate nasal spray, metered, that recommends studies consistent with those requested in the petition. (Docket No. FDA-2021-P-0530, available at
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Draft Guidance on Fluticasone Propionate.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. As we develop any final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on the applicability of Executive Order 14192, per OMB guidance M-25-20, and in particular, on any costs or cost savings.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for investigational new drugs have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for applications for FDA approval to market a new drug and in 21 CFR part 320 for bioavailability and bioequivalence requirements have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
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 Fresenius Medical Care North America (Fresenius) for multiFiltrate PRO System and multiBic/multiPlus solutions (EUA 048), and to Baxter Healthcare Corp. (Baxter) for REGIOCIT (EUA 068). FDA revoked the Authorizations on January 16, 2025, 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.
These Authorizations are revoked as of January 16, 2025.
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 Authorization may be sent. See the
Commander Andrea Gormley, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 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 April 30, 2020, FDA issued an Authorization to Fresenius, for multiFiltrate PRO System and multiBic/multiPlus solutions, subject to the terms of the Authorization. Notice of the issuance of the Authorization was published in the
On August 13, 2020, FDA issued an Authorization to Baxter, for REGIOCIT, 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 January 14, 2025, Fresenius requested revocation of, and on January 16, 2025, FDA revoked, the Authorization for multiFiltrate PRO System and multiBic/multiPlus solutions. Because Fresenius has informed FDA that it does not intend to offer the multiFiltrate Pro System and multiBic/multiPlus solutions under the EUA in the United States anymore, Fresenius requested FDA revoke the EUA for multiFiltrate PRO System and multiBic/multiPlus solutions. 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 January 14, 2025, Baxter requested revocation of, and on January 16, 2025, FDA revoked, the Authorization for REGIOCIT. Because Baxter has informed FDA that it does not intend to offer this product under the EUA in the United States anymore, Baxter requested FDA
Having concluded that the criteria for revocation of the Authorization under section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has revoked the EUA for multiFiltrate PROSystem and multiBic/multiPlus solutions and revoked the EUA for REGIOCIT. These revocations in their entirety follow and provide an explanation of the reasons for revocation, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.
An electronic version of this document and the full text of the Authorization is available on the internet at:
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before July 21, 2025.
Submit your comments to Natalie Klein,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier “0990-0279-60D” and project title, “Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Registration of an Institutional Review Board Form” for reference, to Natalie Klein, email:
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The current form is approved through June 30, 2025. The purpose of the form is to provide a simplified procedure for: (1) IRBs to satisfy the requirements for IRB registration at 45 CFR part 46, subpart E; and (2) IRBs in the United States (US) to satisfy the FDA requirements for IRB registration at 21 CFR 56.106.
Institutions engaged in nonexempt human subjects research conducted or supported by HHS, or another Common Rule department or agency, are required by the terms of the Federalwide Assurance (FWA) to rely upon only IRBs registered with OHRP for review of research to which the FWA applies, and must designate a registered IRB on the institution's FWA submission to OHRP. In this way, OHRP's FWA submission process, established pursuant to the requirements for assurances at 45 CFR 46.103, is linked to the regulatory requirements for IRB registration.
The respondents for this information collection are institutions or organizations operating IRBs that review human subjects research conducted or supported by HHS; or, in the case of FDA's requirements, each IRB in the United States that reviews clinical investigations regulated by FDA under sections 505(i) or 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; and each IRB in the United States that reviews clinical investigations that are intended to support applications for research or marketing permits for FDA-regulated products. Many of the IRBs also review research conducted or supported by other Common Rule departments and agencies.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before July 21, 2025.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-New-60D and project title for reference to
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
OMB No.
The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) aimed to advance the exchange of electronic health information by promoting patient access through standardized application programming interfaces (APIs). Digital health companies develop apps and health IT tools that enable human interaction with APIs to exchange electronic health information. Prior studies indicate widespread adoption of standardized APIs for interoperability with electronic health records (EHRs). Ongoing assessment of these technologies is crucial to examining the impacts of the Cures Act's health IT provisions and is critical to informing the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT's (ASTP/ONC's) policy efforts. With ASTP/ONC's support, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) conducted a 2022 survey of digital health companies assessing implementation of and experiences with healthcare APIs; findings from this survey work are published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. ASTP/ONC finds it essential to continue efforts to survey digital health companies to assess ASTP/ONC's implementation of statutorily mandated information blocking (42 U.S.C. 300jj-52) and APIs “without special effort” policies (42 U.S.C. 300jj-11) under the Cures Act. Information gathered from this effort will help inform ongoing ASTP/ONC efforts to help nurture an ecosystem of innovation and transparency in health care.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Small Business Activities: Cardiovascular and Hematology, June 19, 2025, 09:00 a.m. to June 20, 2025, 06:00 p.m., National
This meeting is being amended to change the meeting dates from June 19-20, 2025, to June 25-26, 2025. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Pathophysiology of Obesity and Metabolic Disease Study Section, June 09, 2025, 10:00 a.m. to June 10, 2025, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the contact person from Dr. Elaine Sierra-Rivera to Dr. Latha Malaiyandi. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Molecular Neurogenetics Study Section, June 05, 2025, 9:00 a.m. to June 06, 2025, 7:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the contact person from Mary Schueler to Prithi Rajan, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing (PIH), HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Comments are due: July 21, 2025
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be posted within 60 days of publication of this notice on
Dawn Martin, Clearance Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Martin.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 21, 2025.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to William Frankel, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW, Room
William Frankel by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you 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.
Any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected has the right to petition the regulatory authority to have an area designated as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations, or to have an existing designation terminated. At a minimum, the regulatory authority requires the following information:
(a) Petitioner's name, address, and telephone number are needed to identify the individual, company, etc., requesting the designation or termination.
(b) Identification of the area is required to determine the location of the area, its size and relationship to the section 522 areas.
(c) Petitioner's interest is needed to determine the status of petitioners for the validity of acceptance of the petition.
(d) Description of how mining of the area has affected, or how mining may affect people or the environment is needed to justify the unsuitability petition.
(e) Allegations of facts and supporting evidence are needed to comply with requirements of section 522(a) and (b).
To terminate designations of lands as unsuitable for surface mining operations, the regulatory authority must be provided with additional information as follows:
(a) Where the unsuitability determination was based on State or local land use plans, fragile or historic lands, loss of land productivity, or lands subject to natural hazards:
1. Discuss the nature or abundance of the protected resource affected.
Discuss the resources or conditions not being affected by mining operations in the surrounding area to ensure adequate protection of resources.
(b) Where the unsuitability petition was based on a finding that reclamation was not technologically or economically feasible, a demonstration that reclamation is now technologically and economically feasible. This is needed to determine the level of resources and the basis for termination of a designation.
The regulatory authority will use this information to identify, locate, compare and contrast the area, resources and conditions for the purpose of complying with section 522.
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
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 20, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this proposed information collection request (ICR) should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this ICR, you may contact William Frankel by email at
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.
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
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on November 1, 2024 (89 FR 87416) and determined on February 4, 2025, that it would conduct expedited reviews (90 FR 11182, March 4, 2025).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on May 16, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5624 (May 2025), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before June 20, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The information collected is used to limit the incidence of communicable disease among temporary labor camp residents. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before June 20, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
Under 30 CFR 7.4 and 15, MSHA tests and approves blasting units and explosive materials as permissible for use in mines, respectively. Under 30 CFR 57.22606(a), mine operators of Category III metal and nonmetal mines must notify the appropriate MSHA District Manager of all nonapproved explosive materials and blasting units prior to their use. Explosive materials used for blasting must be approved by MSHA under 30 CFR part 15, or nonapproved explosive materials must be evaluated and determined by the District Manager to be safe for blasting in a potentially gassy environment. The notice must also include the millisecond-delay interval between successive shots and between the first and last shot in a round. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
The Legal Services Corporation Board of Directors will meet virtually on May 28, 2025. The meeting will commence at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time and will continue until the conclusion of the Board's agenda.
Public Notice of Virtual Meeting.
LSC will conduct the May 28, 2025, meeting via videoconference. Unless otherwise noted herein, the LSC Board of Directors meeting will be open to public observation via LSC's YouTube channel:
Open.
Jessica Wechter, Special Assistant to the President, at (202) 295-1626. Questions may also be sent by electronic mail to
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 9, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 15, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 14, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 13, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 13, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 13, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 12, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 9, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 13, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 15, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 15, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 13, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 12, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 15, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 9, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 14, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 14, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 13, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 14, 2025 it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 12, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 15, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 12, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Date of notice: May 21, 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), on May 15, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 14, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 14, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 13, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
Friday May 16, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. EST.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW.
Closed.
On May 16, 2025, the members of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to hold and to close to public observation a special meeting in Washington, DC. The Board determined that no earlier public notice was practicable. The Board considered the below matters.
1. Administrative Matters.
2. Executive Session.
3. Personnel Matters.
Lucy C. Trout, Acting Secretary of the Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 13, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to remove obsolete text regarding temporary discounts to current (described below) monthly and annual subscribers to the Liquidity Taker Event Report—Simple Orders, Liquidity Taker Event Report—Complex Orders, and Liquidity Taker Event Report—Resting Simple Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 7, Reports, of the Fee Schedule to remove obsolete text regarding temporary discounts to current monthly and annual subscribers to the Liquidity Taker Event Report—Simple Orders (the “Simple Order Report”), Liquidity Taker Event Report—Complex Orders (the “Complex Order Report”), and Liquidity Taker Event Report—Resting Simple Orders (the “Resting Simple Order Report”).
In general, each of the Reports is a daily report that provides a Member
In April 2025, the Exchange performed necessary system upgrades and maintenance, which may have impacted the timeframes (
The Exchange now proposes to remove obsolete text regarding temporary discounts to current monthly and annual subscribers to the Reports since the temporary discounts were available to active subscribers for April 2025 only and April 2025 has past. Further, each of the Reports' timeframes will no longer be impacted as the Exchange completed the necessary system upgrades and maintenance.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposal to remove obsolete text regrading temporary discounts for the Reports would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed change would provide greater clarity to market participants regarding the Exchange's Fee Schedule by removing obsolete text regarding temporary discounts for the Reports that will no longer apply pursuant to the terms of the existing rule text, beginning May 1, 2025. It is in the public interest for the Exchange's Fee Schedule to be accurate so as to eliminate the potential for confusion.
The Exchange also believes that the proposal to remove obsolete text regarding temporary discounts for the Reports is reasonable. The Exchange previously offered the discounts to provide just customer service and in an abundance of caution in case subscribers might find the data in the April 2025 Reports impacted by the planned necessary upgrades. Since the system upgrades were completed in April 2025, each of the Reports' timeframes will no longer be impacted by the necessary system upgrades and maintenance beginning May 2025. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to remove outdated text regarding temporary discounts for the Reports that will no longer apply, beginning May 1, 2025. The Exchange believes that the proposal is fair and not unreasonably discriminatory because it applies to all current and future subscribers to the Reports.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would not impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intra-market competition because the proposed change will have no impact on intra-competition as it is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather is designed to remove outdated text from the Fee Schedule. The temporary discounts were available to active subscribers for April 2025 only. The proposal is to remove outdated text from the Fee Schedule once the temporary discounts for the Reports expire.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would not impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on inter-market competition because the proposed change will have no impact on inter-competition as it is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather is designed to remove outdated text from the Fee Schedule.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 14, 2025, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) advance notice SR-OCC-2025-801 pursuant to section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
OCC is a central counterparty (“CCP”), which means that as part of its function as a clearing agency, it interposes itself as the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer for financial transactions. It is the sole clearing agency for standardized equity options listed on national securities exchanges registered with the Commission. In OCC's role as a registered clearing agency, and as a derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), it guarantees all contracts it clears. As the CCP for the listed options markets and for certain futures in the United States, OCC is exposed to the risk that one or more of its Clearing Members
OCC addresses such risk exposure, in part, by maintaining an overall liquidity plan that provides access to a diverse set of funding sources, including a minimum amount of cash in OCC's Clearing Fund,
In addition to these resources, OCC is permitted to establish a Master Repurchase Agreement (the “MRA”) with a bank counterparty on an ongoing basis with a commitment amount of up to $1 billion (the “Bank Repo Facility”).
The Bank Repo Facility, as filed with the Commission in 2022, includes the condition that the buyer not pledge, charge, encumber, hypothecate, transfer, dispose of, or otherwise grant any third party any interest in (
As proposed, the Bank Repo Facility would continue to provide OCC with access to up to $1 billion in liquidity
The current prohibition against rehypothecation was intended to prevent the bank from granting third parties an interest in purchased securities and thereby reduce the risk that the bank counterparty would not be able to retrieve the securities from the third-party and, as a result, would fail to return the purchased securities to OCC either on the Repurchase Date or otherwise upon OCC's request.
Further, OCC believes it can mitigate the risks attendant to the Bank Repo Facility without prohibiting rehypothecation.
Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, the stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is instructive: to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities (“SIFMUs”) and strengthening the liquidity of SIFMUs.
Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act authorizes the Commission to prescribe regulations containing risk management standards for the payment, clearing and settlement activities of designated clearing entities, including OCC, engaged in designated activities for which the Commission is the supervisory agency.
• To promote robust risk management;
• To promote safety and soundness;
• To reduce systemic risks; and
• To support the stability of the broader financial system.
Section 805(c) provides that the Commission's risk management standards may address such areas as risk management and default policies and procedures, among other areas.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and section 17A of the Exchange Act (the “Clearing Agency Rules”).
The proposal contained in the Advance Notice is consistent with the stated objectives and principles of section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act. Specifically, as discussed below, the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with promoting robust risk management, promoting safety and soundness, reducing systemic risks, and supporting the stability of the broader financial system.
The proposed change to the Bank Repo Facility is consistent with the promotion of robust risk management, in particular the management of liquidity risk presented to OCC. As a CCP and SIFMU,
The Bank Repo Facility cannot, however, provide a committed source of liquidity resources if OCC cannot implement the facility. As stated above, OCC believes it will be able to implement the Bank Repo Facility if it amends the MRA to permit a limited right of rehypothecation. As a result, OCC now proposes to modify the MRA to allow a bank counterparty a limited right of rehypothecation. Because this is the only change to the Bank Repo Facility that OCC is proposing, our analysis of whether the Advance Notice is consistent with the stated objectives and principles of section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act is focused on the specific risks to OCC posed by the provision of such a limited right of rehypothecation and whether such risks are appropriately mitigated.
The initial risk is that the bank counterparty fails to return the purchased securities. The terms of the revised MRA would limit the right to rehypothecate to the bank counterparty, which would bar a third-party investor from further rehypothecating the securities and thereby expanding the set of counterparties involved. Additionally, the terms would require that rehypothecation take place in a tri-party arrangement, such that the securities could not be held directly by the third-party investor, but rather would be held in a custodial account at a trusted bank, limiting the risk that might otherwise arise out of giving the securities directly to the third-party investor. Such an arrangement would also allow OCC's bank counterparty to provide OCC visibility to the collateral and transparency to the allocation of that collateral in a tri-party deal.
In the event that the foregoing is not sufficient to ensure that the bank counterparty returns the purchased securities, both the terms of the revised MRA and OCC's existing rules would provide protections for OCC and specific tools to allow OCC to manage such an event. The primary risks to OCC presented by such an event would be credit losses incurred by OCC or payment obligations that OCC would be required to meet arising out of the bank counterparty's failure to return the securities to OCC. With regard to potential credit losses, OCC's existing Rules permit it to charge such losses to the Clearing Fund in the same manner as it may charge other losses arising out of Clearing Member default.
Another risk presented by rehypothecation could arise in the event a Clearing Member whose Clearing Fund collateral is included in the purchased securities makes a request for collateral substitution.
As described above, such rehypothecation would be limited to a tri-party repo program, where the eligible securities would be held in a custodial account, and the third-party cash investor would be restricted from further rehypothecation. As a result, OCC could request that the bank counterparty provide visibility to the collateral and transparency to the allocation of that collateral in a tri-party deal. Such limitation and visibility serve to increase the likelihood that the bank counterparty would return purchased securities pursuant to the terms of the MRA. Even if the bank counterparty were not able to return the purchased securities, the terms of the Bank Repo Facility include protections designed to ensure that OCC would retain the borrowed funds.
The Advance Notice is also consistent with the promotion of safety and soundness. As described above, the Advance Notice is designed to facilitate implementation of the Bank Repo Facility by amending the permissible terms such that they provide sufficient commercial incentives for the bank counterparty to agree to a $1 billion commitment repurchase facility. Implementation of the Bank Repo Facility would provide OCC access to $1 billion in committed liquidity not otherwise available to it which, in turn, would reduce the likelihood that OCC would have insufficient financial resources to address liquidity demands arising out of a Clearing Member default.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with
Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Exchange Act requires that a CCA establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the CCA, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum, holding qualifying liquid resources sufficient to meet the minimum liquidity resource requirement under Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)(i)
As described above, implementation of the Bank Repo Facility would provide OCC with a committed funding arrangement that would give OCC access to $1 billion of committed liquid resources through an MRA with a designated bank counterparty, which would meet the definition of “qualifying liquid resources” as that term is defined in Rule 17ad-22(a) under the Exchange Act.
Accordingly, the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(7) under the Exchange Act.
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
5C Lending Partners Corp., 5C Lending Partners Advisor LLC, 5C Investment Partners Advisor LLC, and 5C Lending Partners Co-Investment LP.
The application was filed on April 28, 2025 and amended on May 14, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, or Thomas Ahmadifar, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended application, dated May 14, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 6(h) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78f(h)) requires national securities exchanges and national securities associations that trade security futures products to establish listing standards that, among other things, require that: (i) trading in such products not be readily susceptible to price manipulation; and (ii) the market on which the security futures product trades has in place procedures to coordinate trading halts with the listing market for the security or securities underlying the security futures product. Rule 6h-1 implements these statutory requirements and requires that (1) the final settlement price for each cash-settled security futures product fairly reflects the opening price of the underlying security or securities, and (2) the exchanges and associations trading security futures products halt trading in any security futures product for as long as trading in the underlying security for trading of a security futures product based on a single security, or trading in 50% or more of the underlying securities for trading of a security futures product based on a narrow-based security index, is halted on the listing market.
It is estimated that 1 respondent will incur an average burden of 10 hours per year to comply with this rule, for a total burden of 10 hours per year. At an average internal cost per hour of approximately $451, the resultant total internal cost of compliance for the respondents is $4,510 per year (1 respondent × 10 hours/respondent × $451/hour).
Compliance with Rule 6h-1 is mandatory. Any listing standards established pursuant to Rule 6h-1 would be filed with the Commission as proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act and would be published in the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Short Term Option Series Program in Supplementary Material .03 of Options 4, Section 5 to permit the listing of up to two Monday and Wednesday expirations for options on certain individual stocks or Exchange-Traded Fund Shares.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Short Term Option Series Program in Supplementary Material .03 of Options 4, Section 5. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to permit the listing of up to two Monday and Wednesday expirations for options on certain individual stocks or Exchange-Traded Fund Shares (collectively “Qualifying Securities”).
Currently, as set forth in Supplementary Material .03 to Options 4, Section 5, after an option class has been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange as a Short Term Option Series pursuant to Options 1, Section 1(a)(49),
Additionally, the Exchange may open for trading series of options on the symbols provided in Table 1 of Supplementary Material .03 to Options 4, Section 5 that expire at the close of business on each of the next two Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, respectively, that are business days beyond the current week and are not business days in which standard expiration options series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Daily Expirations”).
At this time, the Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option Series Program to permit certain Qualifying Securities to list up to two Monday and Wednesday expirations in addition to the Friday weekly expiration.
The Exchange proposes to define Qualifying Securities as eligible individual stocks or Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, which are separate and apart from the symbols listed in Table 1, that have received approval to list additional expiries on specific symbols, that meet the following criteria on a quarterly basis:
(1) an underlying security, as measured on the last day of the prior calendar quarter, must have:
(A) a market capitalization of greater than 700 billion dollars for an individual stock based on the closing price,
(B) Assets under Management (“AUM”) greater than 50 billion dollars for an Exchange-Traded Fund Share based on net asset value (“NAV”);
(2) monthly options volume, as measured by sides traded in the last month preceding the quarter end, of greater than 10 million options;
(3) a position limit of at least 250,000 contracts; and
(4) participate in the Penny Interval Program.
Each calendar quarter, the Exchange will apply the above criteria to individual stocks and Exchange-Traded Fund Shares to determine eligibility for the following quarter as a Qualifying Security. Beginning on the second trading day in the first month of each calendar quarter, the market capitalization of individual stocks shall be calculated based on the closing price established on the primary exchange on the last trading day of the prior calendar quarter and the AUM for Exchange-Traded Fund Shares shall be calculated based on the NAV established on the primary exchange on the last trading day of the prior calendar quarter. The data establishing the volume thresholds will be established by using data from the last month of the prior calendar quarter from The Options Clearing Corporation. For options listed on the first trading day of a given calendar quarter, the volume shall be calculated using the last month of the quarter prior to the last trading calendar quarter.
Eligible Qualifying Securities would be permitted to list two Short Term Option Expiration Dates beyond the current week for each Monday and Wednesday expiration at one time. For Qualifying Securities, the Exchange would not list an expiry on a day where there will be an Earnings Announcement that takes place after market close. For purposes of this rule proposal, earnings announcements shall include official public quarterly or yearly earnings filed with the Commission (“Earnings Announcement”).
Qualifying Securities that do not continue to meet the above criteria would no longer be permitted to list Monday and Wednesday expiries beginning on the second day of the following quarter.
The proposed Monday Qualifying Securities expirations will be similar to the current Monday Expirations in SPY, QQQ, and IWM (among other symbols that may list a Monday Expiration) in Short Term Option Daily Expirations set forth in Supplementary Material .03 to Options 4, Section 5, such that the Exchange may open for trading on any Friday or Monday that is a business day (beyond the current week) series of options on Qualifying Securities to expire on any Monday of the month that is a business day and is not a Monday in which standard expiration options series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire, provided that Monday expirations that are listed on a Friday must be listed at least one business week and one business day prior to the expiration (“Monday Qualifying Securities Expirations”).
The proposed Wednesday Qualifying Securities expirations will be similar to the current Wednesday SPY, QQQ, and IWM (among other symbols that may list a Wednesday Expiration) in Short Term Option Daily Expirations set forth in Supplementary Material .03 to Options 4, Section 5, such that the Exchange may open for trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business day (beyond the current week) series of options on Qualifying Securities to expire on any Wednesday of the month that is a business day and is not a Wednesday in which standard expiration options series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations”).
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations will be the same as those currently applicable for SPY, QQQ, and IWM Monday and Wednesday Expirations (among other symbols that may list a Monday or Wednesday Expiration) in the Short Term Option Series Program.
Pursuant to Options 1, Section 1(a)(49), with respect to the Short Term Option Series Program, if a Monday is not a business day, the series shall expire on the first business day immediately following that Monday. Also, pursuant to Options 1, Section 1(a)(49), with respect to the Short Term Option Series Program, a Wednesday expiration series shall expire on the first business day immediately prior to that Wednesday,
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the Short Term Option Series Program, the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class.
With this proposal, Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations would be treated similar to existing SPY, QQQ, and IWM Monday and Wednesday Expirations. With respect to standard expiration option series, Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations will be permitted to expire in the same week in which standard expiration option series on the same class expire.
Further, as with SPY, QQQ, and IWM Monday and Wednesday Expirations, the Exchange would not permit Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations to expire on a business day in which standard expiration option series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire.
The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday on several symbols
The Exchange notes that listings in the Short Term Option Series Program comprise a significant part of the standard listings in options markets. Table 1 demonstrates the percentage of weekly listings in the options industry compared to monthly, quarterly, and Long-Term Option Series for a twelve-month period from February 11, 2024 to February 11, 2025.
While the Exchange is expanding the Short Term Option Series Program to permit Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations, the Exchange anticipates that it would overall add a small number of weekly expiration dates because the Exchange will limit the number of Qualifying Securities Expirations to two Monday expirations and two Wednesday expirations. If today the data were applied based on data from January 2025, the following options would meet the criteria to be a Qualifying Security: NVIDIA Corp (“NVDA”), Tesla Inc. (“TSLA”), Apple Inc. (“AAPL”), Amazon.com Inc. (“AMZN”), Broadcom Inc. (“AVGO”), Alphabet Inc. (“GOOGL”), Microsoft Corp (“MSFT”), Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund (“XLF”), and Meta Platforms Inc. (“META”) (collectively “Sample Qualifying Securities”). Utilizing the Sample Qualifying Securities as a data point, expanding the Short Term Option Series Program would account for the addition of approximately 16% of strikes for the total number of strikes for each of the following symbols: NVDA, TSLA, AAPL, AMZN, AVGO, GOOGL, MSFT, and META.
Further, as shown in Table 2, weeklies comprise 52% of the total volume of options contracts.
The Exchange believes there is general demand for alternative expirations in Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations based on a similar analysis. In particular, the Exchange looked at the average daily contracts traded in options that met the criteria for a Qualifying Security. Specifically, for each of the Sample Qualifying Securities, the Exchange looked at pre-close movements between 3:30-4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”) as well as post-close movements between 4:00-5:30 p.m. ET.
Table 3, below, references the number of occurrences of strike breaks through post close (comparing 4:00 p.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET) from 2022 through 2024 for the Sample Qualifying Securities and SPY, QQQ and IWM.
Table 4, below, references average annualized closing volatilities (as measured by the standard deviation of 30 seconds returns over the last 30 minutes of trading) for the Sample Qualifying Securities from 2022 through 2024. Table 4 shows that the Sample Qualifying Securities have an average annualized closing volatility of generally less than 20%.
Table 4, above, demonstrates that the Sample Qualifying Securities are more volatile than SPY, QQQ and IWM.
Given that these are individual stocks it is reasonable to expect that they have idiosyncratic characteristics (increasing their volatility) relative to broad based Exchange-Traded Fund Shares like SPY, QQQ and IWM. None, however, are demonstrating average returns that are more than double that of IWM. Moreover, on Mondays and Wednesdays the Sample Qualifying Securities do not show any excessive propensity to penetrate strikes post close (4:00 p.m.-5:30 p.m. ET) in comparison to SPY, QQQ and IWM. Consequently, the burden of American-style option
The Exchange also reviewed the number of strike breaks for calendar year 2024 for the Sample Qualifying Securities between 4:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET to find the maximum
Table 6, below, reviewed the number of strike breaks for calendar year 2024 for the Sample Qualifying Securities,
Because the Exchange proposes to limit the number of Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations to two expirations beyond the current week, the Exchange believes that the addition of these Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations should encourage Market Makers to continue to deploy capital more efficiently and improve displayed market quality.
Similar to SPY, QQQ and IWM Monday and Wednesday Expirations, the introduction of Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Securities Expirations will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that the proposal would permit only the most liquid securities to have the additional Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations. The Exchange believes that offering these additional expiries in the Qualifying Securities would permit Market Makers and other market participants to precisely hedge their positions in the underlying security with the additional expiries in lieu of hedging only with Friday expirations.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Similar to Monday expirations in SPY, QQQ, and IWM, the proposal to permit Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations, subject to the proposed limitation of two expirations beyond the current week, would protect investors and the public interest by providing the investing public and other market participants more choice and flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions in these options and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure. The Exchange believes that there is general demand for alternative expirations based on the analysis discussed above.
The Exchange believes that the proposed criteria for Qualifying Securities requires individual stocks and Exchange-Traded Fund Shares to be highly liquid. A market capitalization measured on the last day of the prior calendar quarter based on the closing price of the underlying, of greater than 700 billion dollars for an individual stock, or AUM of 50 billion dollars for an Exchange-Trade Fund Share, in conjunction with the monthly options volume requirement of greater than 10 million options as measured by sides traded in the last month preceding the quarter end, is very restrictive. This requirement represents substantially less than 1% of individual stocks (only eight (8) individual stocks currently exist as of January 1, 2025) and substantially less than 1% of Exchange-Traded Fund Shares (only seven (7) Exchange-Traded Fund Shares currently exist as of January 1, 2025, of which five (5) are eligible, today, pursuant to Options 4, Section 3, to trade additional expiries) traded.
The Exchange notes that with respect to position limits, Options 9, Section 13(d)(5) provides, that “[t]o be eligible for the 250,000 contract limit, either the most recent six (6) month trading volume of the underlying security must have totaled at least 100 million shares or the most recent six-month trading volume of the underlying security must have totaled at least seventy-five (75) million shares and the underlying security must have at least 300 million shares currently outstanding.” The 250,000 contract position limit is the highest position limit by Exchange rule. Options that qualify for the 250,000 position (and exercise) limit are highly liquid securities that have met the stringent requirements noted in Options 9, Section 13(d)(5) to qualify for the highest position limit.
Finally, a Qualifying Security must participate in the Penny Interval Program. In order to qualify for the Penny Interval Program, an options class must be among the 300 most actively traded multiply listed option classes overlying securities priced below $200.
The number of individual stocks currently meeting all four criteria for a Qualifying Security is eight (8) and the number of Exchange-Traded Fund Shares currently meeting all four criteria for a Qualifying Security that do not already have Monday and Wednesday expirations is one (1). Both totals represent less than 0.2% of all securities with options listed. The Exchange believes that since individual stocks are the dominant constituents of the broad-based indexes (
The Exchange would not list an expiry on a Qualifying Security on a day where there will be an Earnings Announcement that takes place after market close to avoid post-close price volatility that may arise from the Earnings Announcement and which may impact exercise and/or assignment decisions.
Qualifying Securities that do not continue to meet the above criteria would no longer be permitted to list Monday and Wednesday expiries in the following quarter, although the Qualifying Security would potentially have two weeks of strikes already listed which will persist. These remaining listings could continue to be traded until they expire.
With this proposal, overall, the Exchange would add a small number of Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations by limiting the addition of two Monday expirations and two Wednesday expirations beyond the current week. The addition of Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by encouraging Market Makers to continue to deploy capital more efficiently and improve displayed market quality.
Similar to SPY, QQQ, and IWM Monday and Wednesday Expirations, the introduction of Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations is consistent with the Act as
In particular, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series Program has been successful to date and that Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations should simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way that the Short Term Option Series Program has expanded the landscape of hedging.
There are no material differences in the treatment of SPY, QQQ and IWM Monday and Wednesday Expirations compared to the proposed Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations. Given the similarities between SPY, QQQ and IWM Monday and Wednesday Expirations and the proposed Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations, the Exchange believes that applying the provisions in Supplementary Material .03 to Options 4, Section 5 that currently apply to SPY, QQQ and IWM Monday and Wednesday Expirations is justified.
ISE represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in the proposed option expirations, in the same way that it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series for Monday SPY, QQQ and IWM expirations. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary system capacity to support the new expirations. Finally, the Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of these option expirations. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its proposal is a modest expansion of weekly expiration dates for Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations given that it will be limited to two Monday expirations and two Wednesday expirations beyond the current week.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
While the proposal will expand the Short Term Options Expirations to allow Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations to be listed on ISE,
Similar to SPY, QQQ and IWM Monday and Wednesday Expirations, the introduction of Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations does not impose an undue burden on competition. The Exchange believes that it will, among other things, expand the hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations will allow market participants to purchase options on Qualifying Securities based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
Further, not adding an expiry for a Qualifying Security on a day where there will be an Earnings Announcement that takes place after market close does not impose an undue burden on competition as the Exchange would uniformly apply this practice to the listing of all Qualifying Securities.
The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition, as nothing prevents other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to list and trade Monday and Wednesday Qualifying Security Expirations. Further, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition, as all market participants will be treated in the same manner under this proposal.
No written comments were either solicited or 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 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-25(a)(1) requires broker-dealers registered with the Commission to electronically submit securities transaction information, including identifiers for prime brokerage arrangements, average price accounts, and depository institutions, in a standardized format when requested by the Commission staff. In addition, Rule 17a-25(c) requires broker-dealers to submit, and keep current, contact person information for electronic blue sheets (“EBS”) requests. The Commission uses the information for enforcement inquiries or investigations and trading reconstructions, as well as for inspections and examinations.
The Commission estimates that it sends approximately 10,807 electronic blue sheet requests per year to clearing broker-dealers that in turn submit an average 213,233 responses.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 and send it by email to
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Illinois dated May 14, 2025.
Issued on May 14, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 210716 and for economic injury is 210720.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Illinois.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) proposes a modified system of records, Personnel Security Files (SBA 24), to update its inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. Publication of this notice complies with the Privacy Act and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-108 and Circular A-130. Personnel Security Files (SBA 24) serves as a centralized repository for active and inactive personnel security files to include information from authorized background investigations which supports the SBA's clearance process. The changes include updating the format, updating the system of records name/title, changing the designation of the system manager, and updating information concerning the location of the system of records, referencing the authority for maintaining the records, modifying routine use (M), adding two new routine uses (N) and (O), respectively, and making certain clerical and clarifying revisions.
Submit written comments on or before June 20, 2025. This revised system will be effective upon publication. Routine uses will become effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comment on this notice, identified by [SBA-2024-0012], by any of the following methods.
General or security questions please contact Joseph L. Eitel, Director, Personnel Security, Small Business Administration, 721 19th Street, Room 392, Denver, CO 80202, via email
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing how federal agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' personal information. The Privacy Act applies to records about individuals that are maintained in a “system of records.” A system of records is any group of records under the control of a federal agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by a number, symbol or any other identifier assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act requires each federal agency to publish a system of records notice (SORN) in the
The SBA is required to complete background investigations for suitability and security clearance determinations to ensure individuals supporting the Agency are deemed reliable, trustworthy, and suitable for the role they will fulfill. The Agency's Office of Personnel Security utilizes the Automated Background Investigation System (ABIS), a commercial off the shelf (COTS) web-based system, to support the collection of data that is used by the Bureau to initiate background investigations.
This system of records is comprised of electronic documents managed by the Office of Personnel Security and the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
Automated Background Investigation System Personnel Security Files (SBA ABIS PSF 24).
Controlled Unclassified Information.
SBA Headquarters, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC.
Joseph L. Eitel, Director, Personnel Security, SBA, 721 19th Street, Room 392, Denver, CO 80202.
15 U.S.C. Chapters 14A and 14B; 44 U.S.C. 3101, Executive Order 12968, 5 CFR 731, Executive Order 10450, as amended.
In accordance with E.O. 10450 and E.O. 12968 and 5 CFR 731, the system is used receive requests for background investigations, pre-screen applicants and contractors (granting them approval to enter on duty), forward investigative requests to DCSA for processing, adjudicate completed investigations, grant or deny national security clearances, make final determinations, provide due process, and report the adjudication results.
Active, inactive, and former SBA employees.
Personnel security files for persons covered by this system, including names, both former and aliases, date and place of birth, contact information, addresses, employment and education history, financial information, health records, personnel actions, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and/or
SBA active, inactive, and former employees, Office of Human Resources Solutions, Office of Personnel Security, Office of the Administrator—Chief Operating Officer, witnesses, and OPM.
A. To the federal, state, local or foreign agency or professional organization which investigates, prosecutes, or enforces violations, statutes, rules, regulations, or orders issued when the Agency identifies a violation or potential violation of law whether arising by general or program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order.
B. To other federal agencies, upon request, that are conducting background checks.
C. To a grand jury, court, magistrate, administrative tribunal, or to opposing counsel in the course of hearings, trials, or settlement negotiations.
D. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry on an individual's record, when that office is inquiring at the request of, and on behalf of, the individual, when the congressional member's access rights are no greater than the individual's.
E. To SBA volunteers, contractors, interns, grantees, experts and who have been engaged by SBA to assist in the performance of a service related to this system of records and who need access to the records in order to perform this activity. Recipients of these records shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
F. To OPM in accordance with that agency's authority to evaluate federal personnel management.
G. To the Merit Systems Protection Board in connection with its consideration of appeals of personnel actions.
H. To any federal, state, local, foreign, or international agency, in connection with their assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, issuance of a security clearance, reporting of an investigation of an individual, letting of a contract or issuance of a license, grant or other benefit, to the extent the information is relevant to their decision on the matter.
I. To a grand jury agent pursuant either to a federal or state grand jury subpoena or to a prosecution request that record be released for introduction to a grand jury.
J. To the Office of Government Ethics for any purpose consistent with their mission.
K. To the Department of Justice (DOJ) when any of the following is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by DOJ is deemed by SBA to be relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, SBA determines the disclosure of the records to DOJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected: SBA, or any component thereof; any SBA employee in their official capacity; any SBA employee in their individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or The United States Government, where SBA determines that litigation is likely to affect SBA or any of its components.
L. In a proceeding before a court, or adjudicative body, or a dispute resolution body before which SBA is authorized to appear or before which any of the following is a party to litigation or has an interest in litigation, provided, however, that SBA determines that the use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation, and that, in each case, SBA determines that disclosure of the records to a court or other adjudicative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is a compatible purpose for which the records were collected: SBA, or any SBA component; any SBA employee in their official capacity; any SBA employee in their individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or The United States Government, where SBA determines that litigation is likely to affect SBA or any of its components.
M. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) SBA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records,· (2) the SBA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, SBA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with SBA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
N. To another federal agency or federal entity, when SBA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
O. To Department of Defense the adjudication of investigative files and verification of all National Security clearance holders.
Compliance with federal laws, executive orders, SBA policies and procedures, and other applicable guidelines. Records in this system are stored in a locked, controlled access room and restricted access electronic data systems. OPM National Agency checks that are not immediately referred to OPM are maintained in a physically locked controlled access room with restricted access electronic data systems.
Records are retrieved by employee's full name, social security number.
Compliance with federal laws, (Federal Records Act), executive orders, SBA policies and procedures (SOP 90-47 and SOP 00-41 latest editions, and other applicable guidelines.
Administrative controls include all users must take Cybersecurity Awareness Training which includes a Privacy module and Rules of Behavior annually and prior to using the system. User access is provided based upon approval of the system administrator.
Technical controls include multi factor authentication, least privilege, encryption in transit and at rest, event logging and monitoring, dynamic IP, Discretionary Access Control Lists (DACLs) and Role Based permissions. ABIS generates event logs that record all activity in the system, including successful and unsuccessful login attempts, the user that attempted the action, the IP address the action originated from, records that were accessed and any additional information about the requests. These requests are monitored routinely.
Servers are protected within a controlled and secure room in SBA headquarters. Computers are accessed
Individuals wishing to request access to records about them should submit a Privacy Act request to the SBA Chief, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Office, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third St. SW, Eighth Floor, Washington, DC 20416 or
Notify system manager, Joseph L. Eitel, Director, Personnel Security, SBA, 721 19th Street, Room 392, Denver, CO 80202, and state reason(s) for contesting and the proposed amendment(s) sought.
Individuals may make record inquiries in writing to the system manager, Joseph L. Eitel, Director, Personnel Security, SBA, 721 19th Street, Room 392, Denver, CO 80202.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), all investigatory material in the record compiled for law enforcement purposes or for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, federal contracts, or access to classified information is exempt from the notification, access and contest requirements under 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) and (f) of the Privacy Act of 1974. This exemption is necessary in order to fulfill commitments made to protect the confidentiality of sources and to maintain access to sources necessary in making determinations of suitability for employment.
Small Business Administration Record Rules: 72 FR 17367 (April 9, 2007) and 82 FR 46369 (October 5, 2017).
[FR Doc. 2009-14896, Vol. 74, No. 61] and [FR Doc. 2004-58598, Vol. 69, No. 189].
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4864-DR), dated April 24, 2025.
Issued on May 14, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, dated April 24, 2025, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
(OMB) Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, (SSA) Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, Mail Stop 3253, Altmeyer, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 833-410-1631, Email address:
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 21, 2025. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instrument by writing to the above email address.
1.
Within the Privacy and Disclosure of Official Records and Information regulations, SSA has established methods through which the public can provide consent for release of records under the Privacy Act of 1974. The public can also request records accessible through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We collect the necessary information for these requests through written correspondence, including the Form SSA-3288; other writings, including non-SSA forms often used by large employers, that incorporate SSA's consent requirements; or the Form SSA-3288-OP1 via a webform application linked on SSA's Privacy Program website. The Form SSA-3288-OP1 allows an individual to consent to and authorize SSA to disclose specific types of records that an individual can alternatively request through other writings and written correspondence; however, an individual can consent to and authorize SSA to disclose a broader range of types of records when using other writings and written correspondence (other than Form SSA-3288-OP1).
SSA obtains the required consent(s) (with certain exceptions specified by law) from anyone requesting information in SSA systems of records about another individual. We will not release information requested about an individual until we obtain the required consent from that individual. Under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a (b)), individuals may give SSA written consent to disclose their personal information to a third party of their choosing. In addition, individuals may have multiple needs for the disclosure of their personal information, such as for qualification for a mortgage or preemployment screenings. SSA uses the following forms for obtaining required consent:
(a)
(b)
The respondents are individuals consenting to, authorizing, and requesting SSA disclosure of their records protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 to third parties.
2.
The Enterprise Scheduling System (ESS) allows for both customer self-scheduling and technician-assisted scheduling through an electronic scheduling tool. The first ESS release specifically allowed self-scheduling for enumeration services. However, we are now extending its current functionality, enabling customers and technicians to: schedule, reschedule, or cancel enumeration appointments for new or replacement Social Security cards; and complete Post-Entitlement (PE) actions, such as changing a Representative Payee, processing non-receipt of payment, updating an SSI record, or submitting evidence. In addition, ESS will allow technicians the ability to schedule, reschedule or cancel PE appointments on behalf of customers.
Customers use ESS to schedule an appointment to obtain a new SSN or a replacement Social Security card or for assistance with a PE action. ESS offers customers the following services:
• Appointment scheduling.
• Electronic communication.
• Workload evaluation/planning/management.
• Research.
• Regulatory Mandated/Compliance.
• General purpose statistics.
ESS facilitates both customer self-scheduling and technician scheduling, allowing SSA to collect essential information from customers, including their name, Social Security number, zip code, telephone number, and email address. Additionally, customers have the option to consent to electronic messaging or to opt out, as well as specify their preferred method of communication (email or text), language preference, preferred service office, and appointment day and time preferences. SSA uses this information to schedule in-office, phone, or video appointments for processing enumeration and PE actions. Customers scheduling their PE appointments through a technician have the option to create a one-time passcode, enabling them to securely update their appointment online. The technician will document this one-time passcode along with the customer's other appointment preferences.
Customers begin the process by accessing SSA.gov and engaging an online questionnaire to determine the nature of their business. If applications are available for customers to self-serve, the system routes them to those applications to complete their business. If not, customers are given the option to self-schedule an appointment through ESS. If the customer moves forward, the system directs them to create a credential using Login.gov or ID.me. Once they complete credentialing, customers access ESS to complete required screens and fields to select a date and time for an appointment with an SSA field office (FO) to provide the proofs necessary to obtain a replacement or original SSN card or complete a PE action. Upon completing the required screens and fields, the system presents customers with a screen to review and submit all of the data they input regarding the requested appointment. If the customer enters everything accurately, the system allows the customer to confirm their information and schedules their appointment.
If customers encounter issues with ESS, they may contact SSA by phone to have an FO or Telephone Service Center technician schedule their appointment. Technicians follow existing processes and policies to identify the caller as a legitimate customer, and converse with the customer to determine the nature of their business and if they require an appointment. If the technician determines the customer needs an appointment, the technician accesses ESS and completes the required screens and fields for the enumeration or PE appointment. Once the technician completes the ESS screens, the technician can review all of the information the customer provided with the customer. If the customer indicates it is correct the technician submits and schedules the appointment.
We conduct this information collection each time a customer accesses the online tool or contacts SSA by phone to schedule an appointment. The respondents are individuals looking to schedule their own SSA visit using ESS.
II. SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding this information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than June 20, 2025. Individuals can obtain copies of this OMB clearance package by writing to the
To assess the SSI program and ensure the accuracy of its payments, SSA conducts legally mandated periodic SSI case analysis quality reviews. SSA uses Form SSA-8508-BK to conduct these reviews, collecting information on operating efficiency; the quality of underlying policies; and the effect of incorrect payments. SSA also uses the data to determine SSI program payment accuracy rates, which are a service delivery goals. SSA selects a stratified random sample of recipients each month who received payments during the sample period to conduct these reviews. The SSA reviewer then reviews the selected case files prior to preparing an initial letter contacting the respondent to set up an interview. The initial letter informs the respondent of the review and includes a checklist with any requested documentation for the phone-based interview. During the interview, the SSA reviewer redevelops and verifies all non-medical factors of eligibility and payment amount, asks the sampled individuals questions related to the status of eligibility factors during the review period, then requests the respondent mail in any necessary documentation (listed on the initial letter). During the interview, the SSA reviewer documents responses on the electronic SSA-8508-BK (or e8508), a stand-alone Excel application that resides in the reviewer's government-issued personal computer. If the system is not accessible for some reason, the reviewer uses the paper SSA-8508-BK instead. The respondents are recipients of SSI payments selected for the quality reviews
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability.
The FAA is announcing the availability of the Tiered Environmental Assessment (Tiered EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) for Updates to Airspace Closures for the Flight 9 Mission Profile of the SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Vehicle at the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas. (Tiered EA FONSI/ROD).
The Tiered Environmental Assessment for Updates to Airspace Closures for the Flight 9 Mission Profile of the SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Vehicle at the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas tiers from the 2022 Final PEA and April 2025 Tiered EA and is evaluating the updates to the Aircraft Hazard Area and Notice to Airmen for SpaceX's operation of the Starship-Super Heavy launch program at the Boca Chica vertical launch area (VLA) in Cameron County, Texas. SpaceX must obtain a new license or modification of its existing vehicle operator license from the FAA to operate the Starship-Super Heavy Flight 9 mission profile. The federal action also includes the FAA's issuance of temporary airspace closures. Based on the safety analysis for Starship-Super Heavy Flight 9, an Aircraft Hazard Area and associated Notice to Airmen would necessitate FAA to close airspace over a portion of the Bahamas and the Turks & Caicos Islands. Starship-Super Heavy Flight 9 will impact air routes extending eastward from the Boca Chica launch site through the Straits of Florida, covering approximately 1,600 nautical miles. The designated Aircraft Hazard Area will necessitate the closure of more than 70 airways (established aircraft routes) across the Gulf of America and now, due to vehicle reliability, include the Lucayan Archipelago (Bahamas and Turks & Caicos Islands). Bahamas and Turks & Caicos are expected to close their respective airspace up to 6,000 feet and FAA will close the airspace above that. This is an update to the existing operations involving the Starship-Super Heavy described in the April 2025 Tiered EA.
The FAA has posted the Tiered EA and FONSI/ROD on the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation website:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that William Cole, Safety Coordinator for the Montana Trucking Association, has requested an exemption from the entry-level driver training (ELDT) regulations requirement that classroom or theory instructors for individuals seeking the hazardous materials (HM) endorsement have at least two years of driving experience of the same or higher class and/or the same endorsement level as the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) for which training is to be provided. Mr. Cole believes his knowledge and experience concerning the HM safety regulations and the transportation of such materials on CMVs enable him to provide the theory training for individuals seeking an HM endorsement. FMCSA requests public comment on the applicant's request for an exemption.
Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2025-0084 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number (FMCSA-2025-0084) for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Ms. Bernadette Walker, Driver, and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, FMCSA; (202) 385-2415;
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2025-0084), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
William Cole, Safety Coordinator for the Montana Trucking Association, seeks an exemption from the requirement in the ELDT regulations in 49 CFR 380.605 that HM theory instructors have at least two years of driving experience of the same or higher class and/or the same endorsement level for which training is to be provided.
The applicant states that the exemption would enable him to provide HM training while maintaining the highest level of safety and compliance standards.
Mr. Cole has served for 15 years as a CMV enforcement officer with the state's Motor Carrier Services agency and is currently the Safety Coordinator for Montana Trucking Association, which provides HM training to motor carriers, conducts FMCSA compliance audits, and assists industry leaders in understanding and implementing HM safety protocols. Mr. Cole believes his qualifications “exceed the necessary knowledge and instructional standards for ELDT theory training.” The following is a list of Mr. Cole's credentials included in the exemption application request:
A copy of Mr. Cole's exemption application is available for review in the docket for this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on Mr. Cole's application for an exemption from the requirements in 49 CFR 380.605 from the definition of “theory instructor,” which would allow him to become an ELDT theory instructor for HM endorsements. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) petitioned FRA seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by June 20, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Scott Johnson, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 406-210-3608, email:
Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated March 18, 2025, CSXT petitioned FRA seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2025-0045.
Specifically, CSXT requests to retire the Rigby West signal location at milepost (MP) PLD-15.10 in Scarborough, Maine, on its Portland Subdivision. CSXT additionally requests approval to retire track control operations and extend other than main track limits from MP PLD-15.10 to control point (CP) Cooks at MP PLD-16.30.
In support of the request, CSXT explains that, with the Rigby West signal in service, whenever train crews need to pull a train west out of Rigby Yard for headroom, they must contact the dispatcher and request the westbound signal be cleared. Therefore, retiring the Rigby West signal would reduce these radio communications, which would allow both dispatchers and train crews “to focus on critical operational and safety-related communications in and out of Rigby Yard.” Radio communications would then “remain focused on essential dispatching and operational duties.” The request to extend other than main track limits would create more track space for switching/headroom operations.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by June 20, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) petitioned FRA to extend relief
FRA must receive comments on the petition by June 20, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Ronald O. Simpson, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Safety Partnerships Division, telephone: 314-202-2971, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter received on March 13, 2025, SEPTA petitioned FRA for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 240 (Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers) and part 242 (Qualification and Certification of Conductors). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2015-0084.
Specifically, SEPTA requests an extension of the relief required to continue its participation in FRA's C
In support of its request, SEPTA states that it has made many safety improvements since the waiver was last extended, including reviewing 183 close call submissions; developing a “Shop Movement Job Brief Form,” which has reduced incidents in shop movements; and beginning a campaign to ensure equipment has proper inspection paperwork and testing before leaving initial terminals.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by June 20, 2025, will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked and who have been removed from OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
This action was issued on May 15, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On May 15, 2025, OFAC determined that the following persons would be removed from the SDN List and that their property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction are unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001 (“Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism”) and the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015, as amended by the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Amendments Act of 2018.
1. SERHAN, Fadi Hussein (a.k.a. SARHAN, Fadi Husayn; a.k.a. SIRHAN, Fadi), Own Building, Kanisat Marmkhael, Saliba Street, Corniche, Al-Mazraa, Beirut, Lebanon; Jaafar Building, Mazraa Street, Beirut, Lebanon; Jaafar Building, Mseytbi Street, Beirut, Lebanon; Jaafar Building, Salim Slam Street, Beirut, Lebanon; Jishi Building, Salim Slam Street, Beirut, Lebanon; Own Building, Main Street, Kfar Kila, Lebanon; Mazraa, Salim Slam St., Borj Al Salam Bldg., Beirut, Lebanon; DOB 01 Apr 1961; POB Kafr Kila, Lebanon; alt. POB Kfarkela, Lebanon; nationality Lebanon; Gender
1. VATECH SARL (a.k.a. VATECH LEBANON; a.k.a. VATECH VIDEO AND PRO AUDIO; a.k.a. “VATECH”), P.O. Box 14-5728, Jishi Building, Salim Slam Street, Mazraa, Beirut, Lebanon; P.O. Box 14-5728, Borj al Salam Building, Salim Slam Street, Beirut, Lebanon; Jaafar Building, Mazraa Street, Beirut, Lebanon; Jaafar Building, Moseitbi Street, Beirut, Lebanon; Jaafar Building, Salim Slam Street, Mazraa, Beirut, Lebanon; Jishi Building, Mazraa Street, Beirut, Lebanon; website
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of filing and request for comments.
This notice of filing announces that a petition has been filed requesting that tridecyl alcohol be added to the list of taxable substances. This notice of filing also requests comments on the petition. This notice of filing is not a determination that the list of taxable substances is modified.
Written comments and requests for a public hearing must be received on or before July 21, 2025.
Commenters are encouraged to submit public comments or requests for a public hearing relating to this petition electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jacob W. Peeples at (202) 317-6855 (not a toll-free number).
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(5)
Tridecyl alcohol is made from propylene, amylene, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen. Taxable chemicals constitute 75.9 percent by weight of the materials used to produce this substance.
(6)
Tridecyl alcohol is derived from the oxo reaction with branched olefins. Refinery-connected polygas units generate many of these olefins as purified cuts or fractions.
Most commercial plants for hydroformylation of higher olefins use only cobalt hydrocarbonyl or modified cobalt-phosphine catalysts. Separation of Rh catalysts from higher aldehydes or alcohols is more difficult and expensive. In most cases for the plasticizer and detergent alcohol ranges (C
(7)
(8)
(i)
(ii)
(9)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of filing and request for comments.
This notice of filing announces that a petition has been filed requesting that neo decanoic acid be added to the list of taxable substances. This notice of filing also requests comments on the petition. This notice of filing is not a determination that the list of taxable substances is modified.
Written comments and requests for a public hearing must be received on or before July 21, 2025.
Commenters are encouraged to submit public comments or requests for a public hearing relating to this petition electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jacob W. Peeples at (202) 317-6855 (not a toll-free number).
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(5)
Neo decanoic acid is made from propylene, amylene, carbon monoxide, and water. Taxable chemicals constitute 66.2 percent by weight of the materials used to produce this substance.
(6)
(7)
(8)
(i)
(ii)
(9)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of filing and request for comments.
This notice of filing announces that a petition has been filed requesting that ethylene propylene diene (EPDM) rubber ((C
Written comments and requests for a public hearing must be received on or before July 21, 2025.
Commenters are encouraged to submit public comments or requests for a public hearing relating to this petition electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jacob W. Peeples at (202) 317-6855 (not a toll-free number).
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(5)
Ethylene propylene diene (EPDM) rubber ((C
(6)
(7)
(8)
(i)
(ii)
(9)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of filing and request for comments.
This notice of filing announces that a petition has been filed requesting that nonene be added to the list of taxable substances. This notice of filing also requests comments on the petition. This notice of filing is not a determination that the list of taxable substances is modified.
Written comments and requests for a public hearing must be received on or before July 21, 2025.
Commenters are encouraged to submit public comments or requests for a public hearing relating to this petition electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jacob W. Peeples at (202) 317-6855 (not a toll-free number).
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(5)
Nonene is made from propylene and amylene. Taxable chemicals constitute 90.5 percent by weight of the materials used to produce this substance.
(6)
Nonene (C
(7)
(8)
(i)
(ii)
(9)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of filing and request for comments.
This notice of filing announces that a petition has been filed requesting that tri-isononyl tri-mellitate be added to the list of taxable substances. This notice of filing also requests comments on the petition. This notice of filing is not a determination that the list of taxable substances is modified.
Written comments and requests for a public hearing must be received on or before July 21, 2025.
Commenters are encouraged to submit public comments or requests for a public hearing relating to this petition electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jacob W. Peeples at (202) 317-6855 (not a toll-free number).
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(5)
Tri-isononyl tri-mellitate is made from propylene, amylene, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and trimellitic anhydride. Taxable chemicals constitute 47.3 percent by weight of the materials used to produce this substance.
(6)
This process can be readily carried out in heated kettles with agitation and provision for water takeoff. Esterification catalysts (
This reaction usually requires an excess of alcohol, which is readily recycled. Analogous syntheses yield aliphatic dicarboxylic acid esters, benzoates, and trimellitates.
The tri-isononyl tri-mellitate tri-ester is made by reacting primary isononyl (C9) alcohol with trimellitic anhydride. The ester is produced by esterification of 3 moles of isononyl C9 alcohol and 1 mole of trimellitic anhydride in the presence of a catalyst.
By using excess alcohol (up to 30% molar excess of C9 alcohol) and removing the water, the equilibrium is shifted towards the formation of the tri-ester. The reactants are charged into a reactor and heated up. The reaction rate is accelerated by using, for example, tetra-n-butyl titanate introduced at high temperature (140°C—250°C), while removing the water formed.
Excess alcohol is distilled from the ester by vacuum prior to neutralization and recycled into subsequent batches. The final ester is purified by neutralizing with a base such as an aqueous solution of sodium carbonate. The remaining excess water is distilled off and the ester is then filtered using filter agents. The degree of purity of the ester is min 99.0 wt%.
(7)
(8)
(i)
(ii)
(9)
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10, that the National Research Advisory Council (NRAC) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, June 4, 2025, via Teams. The teleconference number is 1-872-701-0185, Phone Conference ID: 192 450 229# or the meeting link is:
The meeting will convene at 11:00 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. This meeting is open to the public and will include time reserved for public comments at the end of the meeting. The public comment period will be 30 minutes. Individual stakeholders will be afforded 3 to 5 minutes to express their comments.
The purpose of NRAC is to advise the Secretary on research conducted by the Veterans Health Administration, including policies and programs targeting the high priority of Veterans' health care needs.
On June 4, 2025, the agenda will include the annual Federal Advisory Committee Act and ethics trainings; agenda setting and objectives planning for fiscal year 2026; 18 U.S.C. 208, conflict of interest; presentations from the NRAC subcommittees; and public comments.
Members of the public may submit written statements for review by the NRAC in advance of the meeting. Public comments may be received no later than close of business May 28, 2025, for inclusion in the official meeting record. Please send statements to Amanda Garcia, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Research and Development (14RD), Department of Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, at 202-304-3540, or
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10, that the Cooperative Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee (CSSEC) will hold a meeting on June 12, 2025, at the VA Office of Research & Development Conference Room (4042) at 811 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20571, 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. EST.
The Committee provides expert advice on VA cooperative studies, multi-site clinical research activities, and policies related to conducting and managing these efforts. The session will be open to the public for the first 30 minutes of the meeting (approximately) for the discussion of administrative matters and the general status of the program. The remaining portion of the meeting will be closed to the public for the Committee's review, discussion, and evaluation of research and development applications.
During the closed portion of the meeting, the Committee's discussions and recommendations will address the qualifications of the personnel conducting the studies; staff and consultant critiques of research proposals and similar documents; and the medical records of study subjects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Additionally, premature disclosure of research information to the public could significantly obstruct implementation of approved research activities. As provided by Public Law 92-463 subsection 10(d), and amended by Public Law 94-409, closing the Committee meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
The Committee will not accept oral comments from the public for the open portion of the meeting. Members of the public who wish to attend the open teleconference should call 872-701-0185, conference ID 554 433 71#. Those who plan to attend, would like additional information, or would like to submit written comments should contact David Burnaska, Program Manager, Cooperative Studies Program (14RD), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, at
(a) heading 9903.01.25 of the HTSUS shall be amended by deleting the article description and by inserting “Articles the product of any country, except for products described in headings 9903.01.26-9903.01.33, and except as provided for in heading 9903.01.34, as provided for in subdivision (v) of U.S. note 2 to this subchapter . . . . . . ” in lieu thereof;
(b) heading 9903.01.63 of the HTSUS shall be amended by deleting “125%” each place that it appears and by inserting “34%” in lieu thereof;
(c) subdivision (v)(xiii)(10) of U.S. note 2 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS shall be amended by deleting “125%”, and by inserting “34%” in lieu thereof; and
(d) heading 9903.01.63 and subdivision (v)(xiii)(10) of U.S. note 2 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS are hereby suspended for a period of 90 days beginning at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 14, 2025.
(a) decrease the
(b) retain in effect the per postal item containing goods duty of 100 dollars in section 2(c)(ii) of Executive Order 14256, as modified by Executive Order 14259 and Executive Order 14266, that has been in effect since 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 2, 2025, unless and until otherwise modified by a subsequent executive action, notwithstanding the increase contemplated effective June 1, 2025, pursuant to Executive Order 14256, as modified by Executive Order 14259 and Executive Order 14266; and
(c) modify the HTSUS, effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 14, 2025, as follows:
(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 Commerce.