90
127
Monday, July 7, 2025
Contents
Agriculture

Agriculture Department

See
Food and Nutrition Service

NOTICES
Adoption of Energy Efficiency Standards for New Construction of Department of Housing and Urban Development- and Department of Agriculture-Financed Housing,
29882-29885
2025-12522
AIRFORCE

Air Force Department

NOTICES
Licenses; Exemptions, Applications, Amendments, etc.:
Exclusive Patent,
29852
2025-12577
Centers Medicare

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals,
29870-29871
2025-12585
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals; Correction,
29871-29872
2025-12566
2025-12567
Board

Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board

NOTICES
Formal Determination on Records Release,
29834-29839
2025-12514
Civil Rights

Civil Rights Commission

NOTICES
Hearings, Meetings, Proceedings, etc.:
Michigan Advisory Committee,
29839
2025-12562
New Jersey Advisory Committee,
29839-29840
2025-12561
Coast Guard

Coast Guard

RULES
Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone:
Hampton River, Hampton, NH,
29728-29734
2025-12540
Safety Zone:
Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi, TX,
29726-29728
2025-12541
Redfish Bay, Aransas Pass, TX,
29725-29726
2025-12544
Commerce

Commerce Department

See
Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See
International Trade Administration

See
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See
Patent and Trademark Office
Defense Department

Defense Department

See
Air Force Department

See
Engineers Corps

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals,
29852-29854
2025-12501
2025-12597
Drug

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES
Decision and Order:
Loretta Clement, M.D.,
29885-29886
2025-12605
Education Department

Education Department

RULES
Classification of Revenue under Title IV,
29734-29737
2025-12554

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:
Impact Aid Program—Application for Section 7002 Assistance,
29854-29855
2025-12529
Impact Aid Program—Application for Section 7003 Assistance,
29855
2025-12530
Income Driven Repayment Plan Request for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans and Federal Family Education Loan Programs; Correction,
29855
2025-12525
Employment and Training

Employment and Training Administration

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:
Application for Permanent Employment Certification, and Appendices,
29890-29891
2025-12553
Energy Department

Energy Department

See
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES
Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation,
29773-29774
2025-12557

NOTICES
Importation or Exportation of Liquified Natural Gas or Electric Energy; Applications, Authorizations, etc.:
Castleton Commodities Energy Trading LLC,
29855-29856
2025-12565
Danske Commodities US LLC,
29857-29858
2025-12574
H.Q. Energy Services (US) Inc.,
29856-29857
2025-12559
Engineers

Engineers Corps

NOTICES
Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.:
Columbia River System Operations; Withdrawal,
29854
2025-12604
Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection Agency

RULES
Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations:
California; Revised Format for Nonregulatory Provisions,
29934-29983
2025-12586
Florida; Revisions to Stationary Sources—Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule Provisions,
29745-29748
2025-12602
Louisiana; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard,
29743-29745
2025-12533
Ohio; Moderate Attainment Plan Elements for the Cleveland Area for the 2015 Ozone Standard,
29742-29743
2025-12512
Oklahoma; Control of Emissions from Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,
29749-29751
2025-12599
West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period,
29737-29741
2025-12527
Renewable Fuel Standard Program:
Partial Waiver of the 2024 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement,
29751-29760
2025-11153

PROPOSED RULES
Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations:
Connecticut; 2014 and 2017 Periodic Emissions Inventory for 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,
29821-29826
2025-12515
Oklahoma; Revisions to Air Pollution Control Rules,
29818-29821
2025-12508
Hearings, Meetings, Proceedings, etc.:
Implementation Challenges Associated with Clean Water Act Section 401,
29828-29830
2025-12564
New Source Performance Standards:
Delegation of Authority to Oklahoma,
29826-29828
2025-12520

NOTICES
New Stationary Sources:
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District; Delegation of Authority,
29868
2025-12519
Proposed Consent Decree:
Clean Air Act Citizen Suit,
29866-29868
2025-12528
Export Import

Export-Import Bank

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:
Application for Medium Term Insurance, Direct Loan or Guarantee,
29869
2025-12592
Application for Short-Term Letter of Credit Export Credit Insurance Policy,
29868-29869
2025-12591
Federal Aviation

Federal Aviation Administration

RULES
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points:
Jacksonville, NC,
29719-29720
2025-12507
Airworthiness Directives:
Airbus Helicopters,
29717-29719
2025-12503

PROPOSED RULES
Airworthiness Directives:
ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes,
29802-29804
2025-12563
Honda Aircraft Company LLC Airplanes,
29804-29806
2025-12555
Federal Communications

Federal Communications Commission

RULES
Assessment and Collection of Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2024,
29760-29773
2025-12579

PROPOSED RULES
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks to Refresh Record on Telephone Access Charges,
29830-29831
2025-12583

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals,
29869-29870
2025-12593
Federal Contract

Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:
Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor,
29892-29893
2025-12556
Federal Energy

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals,
29861-29864
2025-12545
2025-12547
Combined Filings,
29858-29861, 29865-29866
2025-12542
2025-12543
2025-12549
Licenses; Exemptions, Applications, Amendments, etc.:
Goodyear Lake Hydro, LLC,
29858
2025-12548
Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications,
29864-29865
2025-12546
Federal Highway

Federal Highway Administration

NOTICES
Final Federal Agency Action:
Proposed Transportation Project in Utah,
29927
2025-12587
Federal Maritime

Federal Maritime Commission

NOTICES
Complaint:
Dollar General Logistics, LLC, Complainant, v. Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp., Respondent,
29870
2025-12523
Federal Motor

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

NOTICES
Exemption Application:
Qualification of Drivers; Skill Performance Evaluation Program, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles,
29928-29930
2025-12550
Food and Nutrition

Food and Nutrition Service

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:
Special Milk Program for Children,
29832-29833
2025-12569
Foreign Trade

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

NOTICES
Application for Subzone:
PINNACLEMOD LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 173, Aberdeen, WA,
29840
2025-12524
Health and Human

Health and Human Services Department

See
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See
National Institutes of Health
Homeland

Homeland Security Department

See
Coast Guard

See
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Housing

Housing and Urban Development Department

NOTICES
Adoption of Energy Efficiency Standards for New Construction of Department of Housing and Urban Development- and Department of Agriculture-Financed Housing,
29882-29885
2025-12522
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:
Disaster Response Survey and Disaster Recovery Survey,
29879-29880
2025-12589
Indian Housing Block Grants Program,
29880-29881
2025-12590
Request for Prepayment of Section 202 or 202/8 Project,
29881-29882
2025-12588
Interior

Interior Department

See
Reclamation Bureau
International Trade Adm

International Trade Administration

NOTICES
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews:
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Correction,
29843-29847
2025-12573
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan,
29840-29843
2025-12572
Justice Department

Justice Department

See
Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:
Annual Reporting for Manufacturers of Listed Chemicals,
29888-29889
2025-12570
Application for Registration for Narcotic Treatment Programs, Application for Registration Renewal for Narcotic Treatment Programs,
29887-29888
2025-12571
Application for Registration under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act, Renewal Application for Registration under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act,
29886-29887
2025-12568
U.S. Department of Justice Self Reportable Activities,
29889-29890
2025-12594
Labor Department

Labor Department

See
Employment and Training Administration

See
Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office

See
Labor Statistics Bureau

See
Wage and Hour Division
Labor Statistics

Labor Statistics Bureau

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals,
29893-29894
2025-12502
Legal

Legal Services Corporation

NOTICES
Meetings; Sunshine Act,
29894-29896
2025-12624
Maritime

Maritime Administration

NOTICES
Licenses; Exemptions, Applications, Amendments, etc.:
ST LNG Deepwater Port Development Project,
29930-29932
2025-12406
National Archives

National Archives and Records Administration

See
Office of Government Information Services
National Credit

National Credit Union Administration

NOTICES
Hearings, Meetings, Proceedings, etc.:
Chartering and Field of Membership,
29896-29897
2025-12531
National Institute

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES
Hearings, Meetings, Proceedings, etc.:
Center for Scientific Review,
29872-29873
2025-12551
2025-12552
National Oceanic

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RULES
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species:
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; Closure of the Harpoon Category Fishery for 2025,
29792-29793
2025-12600
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska:
Pacific Halibut Recreational Quota Entity Program Fee Collection,
29774-29792
2025-12558

PROPOSED RULES
Deep Seabed Mining:
Exploration License and Commercial Recovery Permit Applications,
29806-29817
2025-12513

NOTICES
Permits; Applications, Issuances, etc.:
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Exempted Fishing,
29847-29851
2025-12595
2025-12596
Nuclear Regulatory

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NOTICES
Meetings; Sunshine Act,
29897
2025-12598
OGIS

Office of Government Information Services

NOTICES
Hearings, Meetings, Proceedings, etc.:
Office of Government Information Services,
29896
2025-12532
Patent

Patent and Trademark Office

NOTICES
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Working Party on Countering Illicit Trade (WP-CIT) Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Countering Illicit Trade in Counterfeit Goods on Online Marketplaces,
29851-29852
2025-12535
Reclamation

Reclamation Bureau

NOTICES
Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.:
Columbia River System Operations; Withdrawal,
29854
2025-12604
Securities

Securities and Exchange Commission

NOTICES
Application:
Lord Abbett Credit Opportunities Fund, et al.,
29898
2025-12504
Order:
Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., et al.,
29912-29921
2025-12521
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes:
MX2 LLC,
29898-29911
2025-12517
NYSE Arca, Inc.,
29923-29926
2025-12518
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC,
29921-29923
2025-12516
Small Business

Small Business Administration

PROPOSED RULES
Small Business Investment Company Regulatory Amendments,
29794-29802
2025-12584

NOTICES
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals,
29926-29927
2025-12601
State Department

State Department

RULES
International Traffic in Arms:
Certain Proscribed Countries and Other Changes,
29720-29724
2025-12560
Transportation Department

Transportation Department

See
Federal Aviation Administration

See
Federal Highway Administration

See
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See
Maritime Administration
Customs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES
Commercial Gauger and Laboratory; Accreditation and Approval:
Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., Levittown, Toa Baja, PR,
29875
2025-12539
AmSpec, LLC, Destrehan, LA,
29873-29874
2025-12580
AmSpec, LLC, Houston, TX,
29877
2025-12581
Camin Cargo Control, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL,
29874-29875
2025-12536
Camin Cargo Control, Inc., Tampa, FL,
29876-29877
2025-12538
Laboratory Service, Inc., Carteret, NJ,
29875-29876
2025-12576
NMK Resources, Inc., Kenner, LA,
29877-29878
2025-12582
Saybolt LP, Deer Park (Vopak), TX,
29878-29879
2025-12537
Wage

Wage and Hour Division

PROPOSED RULES
Employment of Workers with Disabilities under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; Withdrawal,
29817-29818
2025-12534

Separate Parts In This Issue

Part II
Environmental Protection Agency,
29934-29983
2025-12586

Reader Aids
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.
90
127
Monday, July 7, 2025
Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2025-0467; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00873-R; Amendment 39-23065; AD 2025-12-07]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C helicopters. This AD was prompted by a determination that new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the existing maintenance manual (MM) or instructions for continued airworthiness (ICAs) and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:
This AD is effective August 11, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 11, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0467; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email: ADs@easa.europa.eu; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0467.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hye Yoon Jang, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (206) 231-3758; email: hye.yoon.jang@faa.gov .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2025 (90 FR 13314). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0145, dated July 14, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0145) (also referred to as “the MCAI”), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed. EASA advises that airworthiness limitations and certification maintenance instructions are identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness and that Revision 9 of Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C ALS, dated July 27, 2022, has been issued to specify all service life limits and maintenance tasks for Model AS332C helicopters and separate the airworthiness limitations from the Master Servicing Manual.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the ALS of the existing MM or ICAs and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of critical parts and primary structural components, which if not addressed could result in loss of control of the helicopter.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0467.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments
The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

Conclusion
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Material Incorporated by Reference Under 1 CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0145, which specifies replacing components before exceeding their life limits and accomplishing all applicable maintenance tasks within thresholds and intervals specified in the ALS as defined in EASA AD 2023-0145. Depending on the results of the maintenance tasks, EASA AD 2023-0145 specifies accomplishing corrective action(s) or contacting Airbus Helicopters for approved instructions and accomplishing those instructions.
Additionally, EASA AD 2023-0145 specifies revising the Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) by incorporating the limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals described in the specified ALS, as applicable. Revising the AMP constitutes terminating action for the requirement to record accomplishment of the actions of replacing components before exceeding their life limits and accomplishing maintenance tasks within thresholds and intervals specified in the applicable ALS as required by EASA AD 2023-0145 for demonstration of AD compliance on a continued basis.
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 ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 105 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.
Revising the ALS of the existing MM or ICAs and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, takes 1 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $8,925 for the U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking
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.

Regulatory Findings
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

The Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
2025-12-07 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-23065; Docket No. FAA-2025-0467; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00873-R.

(a) Effective Date
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 11, 2025.

(b) Affected ADs
None.

(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C helicopters, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of critical parts and primary structural components, which if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(g) Required Action
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2023-0145, dated July 14, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0145).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0145
(1) Where EASA AD 2023-0145 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) This AD does not adopt paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of EASA AD 2023-0145.
(3) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0145 specifies “Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the approved AMP”, this AD requires replacing that text with “Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the airworthiness limitations section of the existing maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable”.
(4) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0145 is on or before the applicable limitations and associated thresholds as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0145 or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(5) This AD does not adopt the Remarks section of EASA AD 2023-0145.

(i) Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals
After the action required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been done, no alternative actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including any life limits, are allowed unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the Ref. Publications section of EASA AD 2023-0145.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to: AMOC@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

(k) Additional Information
For more information about this AD, contact Hye Yoon Jang, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (206) 231-3758; email: hye.yoon.jang@faa.gov.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0145, dated July 14, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email: ADs@easa.europa.eu; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov.
Issued on June 18, 2025.
Steven W. Thompson,

Acting Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA-2025-0931; Airspace Docket No. 25-ASO-10]
RIN 2120-AA66
Establishment of E2 and Removal of Class E4 Airspace Over Jacksonville, NC

AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
This action establishes Class E2 airspace extending upward from the surface above the New River Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Jacksonville, NC, as the air traffic control tower operates part-time. This action also removes the Class E4 airspace at New River MCAS (NCA), Jacksonville, NC, due to the current designated airspace no longer meeting the requirements of its designation. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES:
Effective 0901 UTC, October 2, 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.

ADDRESSES:
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours a day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at www.federalregister.gov.
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations, and Reporting Points, as well as subsequent amendments, can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you may also contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; Telephone: (202) 267-8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Christopher Stocking, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: (404) 305-5887.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it establishes Class E2 and removes Class E4 airspace in Jacksonville, NC.

History
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2025-0931 in the Federal Register (90 FR 20264; May 13, 2025), proposing to establish Class E2 and remove Class E4 airspace at New River MCAS, Jacksonville, NC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Incorporation by Reference
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document 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, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The Rule
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E2 and remove Class E4 airspace for New River MCAS, Jacksonville, NC.
This action establishes Class E2 airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of New River MCAS. This Class E2 airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Additionally, this action removes the Class E4 airspace for New River MCAS, Jacksonville, NC. Class E4 airspace is no longer required for the safety and management of IFR operations in the area.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.
* * * * *

ASO NC E2 Jacksonville, NC [New]
New River MCAS, NC
(Lat. 34°42′30″ N, long. 77°26′23″ W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of New River MCAS. This Class E2 airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area.
* * * * *

ASO NC E4 Jacksonville, NC [Removed]
New River MCAS, NC
(Lat. 34°42′30″ N, long. 77°26′23″ W)
* * * * *
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 1, 2025.
Andreese Davis,

Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Parts 120 and 126
[Public Notice: 12731]
RIN 1400-AF83
International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Updates to Certain Proscribed Countries and Other Changes

AGENCY:
Department of State.

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to update the entries for the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan, pursuant to recent United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs). Further, the Department is updating the list of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members and major non-NATO allies and is making other corrections and clarifications within the ITAR.

DATES:
This rule is effective on July 7, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Ryan Haddad, Foreign Affairs Officer, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, U.S. Department of State, telephone: 771-204-7878; email DDTCCustomerService@state.gov. ATTN: Regulatory Change, ITAR Section 126.1 and Other Changes.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1 pursuant to recent UNSCRs. Additionally, the Department is making other corrections and clarifications to the ITAR in this rule, including revising ITAR § 120.23 paragraph (a) to amend the list of NATO members to add Finland and Sweden and revise the reference to the Czech Republic to Czechia; paragraph (b) to amend the list of major non-NATO allies by adding Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar and removing Afghanistan; paragraph (c) to amend the list of countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement by revising the reference to the Czech Republic to Czechia; removing duplicative references to the Russian Federation from ITAR § 120.54(a)(5)(iv) and (v); revising ITAR § 126.1(a) to improve its readability by restructuring it to set out its existing exceptions as discreet subparagraphs; and updating the table associated with ITAR § 126.1(d)(2).
The ITAR § 126.1 changes found in this rule are as follows:

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
On June 27, 2024, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 2738 to support efforts promoting peace and stability in the DRC against continued threats from armed groups operating in the country. In addition to renewing the United Nations (UN) arms embargo against non-governmental entities and individuals, this resolution reaffirmed there is no longer a requirement to pre-notify the DRC Sanctions Committee of shipments of arms and related materiel to the DRC Government, or any provision to the DRC Government of assistance, advice, or training related to military activities in the DRC. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(i) to remove this pre-notification requirement. In addition, the Department is amending paragraph (i) by inserting an “or” between the final two paragraphs describing situations in which a license or other approval may be issued. The “or” was inadvertently omitted when the entry was amended by 81 FR 66804, Sept. 29, 2016.

Haiti
On October 18, 2024, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2752, which renewed and revised the UN arms embargo on Haiti. This resolution was intended to further support the Haitian Government's efforts to counter increasing gang violence and criminality that threaten regional peace and stability. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(j) to implement recent changes to the UN arms embargo on Haiti related to exports, and the Department is choosing to maintain the inclusion of imports in ITAR § 126.1(j) for policy reasons. Because this amendment involves the removal of paragraph (j)(2), the Department also takes this opportunity to restructure the entry to be consistent with the format for other entries in that section. First, ITAR § 126.1(j) is revised to include the standard policy text previously found at paragraph (j)(1) and the subsequent subordinate paragraphs are redesignated from (i) through (iii) to (1) through (3). Second, new paragraph (j)(1) (formerly (j)(1)(i)) is revised to broaden the existing text to allow for case-by-case consideration of defense article and defense service exports “to or by,” instead of “to,” recipients identified in the paragraph. Third, new paragraph (j)(2) (formerly paragraph (j)(1)(ii)) is revised to permit consideration on a case-by-case basis of exports of defense articles and defense services to Haiti that have been pre-approved by the UNSC Haiti Sanctions Committee. Finally, new paragraph (j)(3) (formerly paragraph (j)(1)(iii)) is revised to permit case-by-case consideration of exports to Haiti of non-lethal military equipment solely for humanitarian or protective use and related technical assistance or training, when intended to further the objectives of peace and stability in Haiti, thereby broadening an existing exclusion for personal protective equipment. In line with these changes, the Department is also amending this paragraph to remove former paragraph (j)(2).

Libya
To support the political stabilization of Libya, and in response to concerns about the growing influence of armed groups in the country, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2769 on January 16, 2025. This revised the existing UN arms embargo by excluding from its scope defense services for the sole purpose of promoting reunification of Libyan military and security institutions, as well as temporary exports of defense articles in support of those activities, as notified in advance to the UNSC Libya Sanctions Committee. Additionally, another exclusion was added for temporary exports to Libya of military aircraft and naval vessels delivering items not otherwise subject to the UN arms embargo, along with any defense articles that remain aboard the vessel or aircraft while in Libya. The resolution also contains an exception for protective clothing for personal use by UN, media, humanitarian, and development personnel and others; small arms, light weapons, and related materiel to certain actors when pre-notified to the UNSC Libya Sanctions Committee; non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, and certain other exceptions. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(k) to implement these changes and to remove the existing (k)(1) paragraph, which was removed from the UN arms embargo exclusions through UNSC Resolution 2009 on September 16, 2011.

Somalia
On December 1, 2023, the UNSC adopted two resolutions intended to refocus its arms embargo in support of the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia's efforts to counter Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group in Somalia. The first, Resolution 2713, applied a comprehensive arms embargo on all deliveries of weapons, ammunition, and military equipment to Somalia with exceptions for deliveries to the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Somali National Army, the Somali National Intelligence and Security Agency, the Somali National Police Force, and the Somali Custodial Corps, as well as certain other exceptions in the resolution. The second, Resolution 2714, formally lifted the prior nationwide arms embargo on Somalia that had been in place since the adoption of Resolution 733 in 1992. These measures were reauthorized and modified in Resolution 2776 on March 3, 2025. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(m) to implement these changes.

Central African Republic (CAR)
On July 30, 2024, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2745, which modified the existing UN arms embargo toward CAR in recognition of the country's security sector reforms and the continuing need to ensure peace and stability within its borders. This resolution lifted the arms embargo for CAR and the associated UNSC Central African Republic Sanctions Committee reporting requirements while the arms embargo remains in place for armed groups and associated individuals operating within CAR. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(u) to update the regulations with the corresponding changes adopted through Resolution 2745.

Sudan
On September 11, 2024, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2750, which renewed the UN arms embargo on Sudan in response to continuing conflict in Darfur. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(v) to implement this resolution and prior provisions through the deletion of ITAR § 126.1(v)(4), which allowed for a case-by-case review of licenses or other approvals involving assistance and supplies provided in support of implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. This removal requires minor conforming changes to paragraphs (v)(2) and (v)(3).

South Sudan
On May 30, 2024, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2731, which renewed the UN arms embargo on South Sudan in response to sustained civil strife within the country. This embargo does not apply to defense article and defense service exports to UN personnel and certain UN-authorized missions; non-lethal military equipment and related technical assistance for humanitarian or protective use, as notified in advance to the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee; protective clothing for the personal use of UN personnel, media members, and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel; arms and related material temporarily exported by a state to protect or evacuate its people as notified to the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee; arms and related material, including technical assistance, to or in support of the African Union Regional Task Force for the purpose of countering the Lord's Resistance Army as notified to the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee; arms and related material, including technical assistance, to support peace agreement implementation as pre-approved by the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee; and other arms and technical assistance pre-approved by the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee. The arms embargo was previously revised on May 26, 2022, through Resolution 2633, which created an exclusion for exports of non-lethal military equipment solely in support of peace agreement implementation when pre-notified to the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee. It was also previously revised on May 30, 2023, by Resolution 2683, which removed the pre-notification requirement on that new exclusion. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(w) to reflect these UNSC resolutions.
Other corrections and clarifications found in this rule are as follows:
• In § 120.23, paragraph (a), references to Finland and Sweden are added to the list of member states of NATO and the reference to the Czech Republic is revised to Czechia; in paragraph (b), Qatar, Colombia, and Kenya are added, and Afghanistan is removed from the list of countries designated as major non-NATO allies, see 87 FR 15025, Mar. 17, 2022, 87 FR 32943, May 31, 2022, 89 FR 57055, July 12, 2024, and 87 FR 60057, Oct. 4, 2022, respectively; and in paragraph (c), the reference to the Czech Republic is revised to Czechia.
• In ITAR § 120.54(a)(5)(iv) and (v), the Russian Federation is removed, as the country was added to ITAR § 126.1 by 86 FR 14802, Mar. 18, 2021.
• ITAR § 126.1(a) is restructured without substantive changes to improve its clarity.
• In § 126.1, table 2 to paragraph (d)(2) is amended by inverting the entries for Ethiopia and Eritrea to be in the correct alphabetical order, and reinserting an entry for Cambodia, which was inadvertently omitted from the directional table by 89 FR 18796, Mar. 15, 2024. Although omitted from the table, the Department notes that paragraph (o) is the controlling provision, and not the alphabetically sorted table 2 to paragraph (d)(2), which is included as a guide to assist the reader in locating the relevant country paragraph. Because of its inclusion at paragraph (o), Cambodia remained subject to the policy to deny licenses or other approvals for exports and imports of defense articles and defense services, except as otherwise provided, during its absence from the table.
• In § 126.1(l), the Department amends the paragraph regarding the policy towards Russia to eliminate from the regulatory text the expired exception allowing case-by-case review of requests for authorization for commercial space launches (see 86 FR 14802, Mar. 18, 2021).
• In § 126.1, as part of its reorganization efforts to standardize text throughout the ITAR when otherwise revising a section, the Department amends certain paragraphs in order to adopt a uniform style of list regarding exceptions to the original policy statement of the introductory text of each paragraph. Whereas previously the exceptions lists concluded with either an “and” or an “or” between the penultimate and final exceptions of the list, the Department amends affected paragraphs in this section to use “or” where appropriate. These changes are to paragraphs (f)(1) and (j)(2). A similar revision is described above in the preamble text specific to the DRC.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

Administrative Procedure Act
This rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as a military or foreign affairs function of the United States.

Regulatory Flexibility Act
Since this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, the rule does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Congressional Review Act
The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule within the definition of 5 U.S.C. 804.

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132
This rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

Executive Orders 12866, 14192, and 13563
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 13563, directs 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). As a result of this change, certain exemptions to licensing requirements will not be available for exports, and temporary imports destined for or originating in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, South Sudan, or Sudan. However, a license or other approval may be issued on a case-by-case basis as described below. Because the scope of this rule does not impose significant additional regulatory requirements or obligations, the Department believes costs associated with this rule will be minimal. This rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192 because it relates to a foreign affairs function of the United States. This rule has been designated a “non-significant regulatory action” by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988
The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13175
The Department of State determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.

Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

List of Subjects
22 CFR Part 120
Arms and munitions, Classified information, Exports.
22 CFR Part 126
Arms and munitions, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technical assistance.
For the reasons set forth above, the Department of State amends title 22, chapter I, subchapter M, parts 120 and 126 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 120—PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
1. The authority citation for part 120 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
22 U.S.C. 2651a, 2752, 2753, 2776, 2778, 2779, 2779a, 2785, 2794, 2797; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 223.
2. Amend § 120.23 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2), and (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 120.23
Organizations and arrangements.
(a) North Atlantic Treaty Organization. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) refers to the organization of member states that are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty, which members include: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and any state not included here that has deposited an instrument of accession in accordance with Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
(b) * * *
(2) The following countries have been designated as major non-NATO allies: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, and Tunisia. Taiwan shall be treated as though it were designated a major non-NATO ally.
(c) Wassenaar Arrangement. (1) The Wassenaar Arrangement refers to the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies among the United States, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, established on 12 July 1996, to promote transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies.
* * * * *
3. Amend § 120.54 by revising paragraphs (a)(5)(iv) and (v) to read as follows:
§ 120.54
Activities that are not exports, reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) Not intentionally sent to a person in or stored in a country proscribed in § 126.1 of this subchapter; and

Note 1 to paragraph (a)(5)(iv):
Data in-transit via the internet is not deemed to be stored in a country it transits.
(v) Not sent from a country proscribed in § 126.1 of this subchapter;
* * * * *

PART 126—GENERAL POLICIES AND PROVISIONS
4. The authority citation for part 126 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
22 U.S.C. 287c, 2651a, 2752, 2753, 2776, 2778, 2779, 2779a, 2780, 2791, 2797, 10423; sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375, 118 Stat. 2091; sec. 7045, Pub. L. 112-74, 125 Stat. 1232; sec. 1250A, Pub. L 116-92, 133 Stat. 1665; sec. 205, Pub. L. 116-94, 133 Stat. 3052; and E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 223.
5. Amend § 126.1 by:
a. Revising paragraph (a), table 2 to paragraph (d)(2), and paragraphs (f)(1), (i)(1) and (4), and (j);
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (k)(1), revising paragraphs (k)(5) and (6) and adding paragraphs (k)(7) through (9); and
c. Revising paragraphs (l), (m), (u), and (v)(2) and (3), removing paragraph (v)(4), and revising paragraph (w).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
§ 126.1
Prohibited exports, imports, and sales to or from certain countries.
(a) General. It is the policy of the United States to deny licenses and other approvals for exports and imports of defense articles and defense services, destined for or originating in certain countries. (See also § 129.7 of this subchapter, which imposes restrictions on brokering activities similar to those in this section.) The exemptions provided in this subchapter do not apply with respect to defense articles or defense services originating in or for export to any proscribed countries, areas, or persons as described in this section, except that the following exemptions may be utilized:
(1) Transfers pursuant to § 123.17 of this subchapter, or § 126.6, or § 126.18(e);
(2) Transfers by or for the U.S. Government pursuant to the following sections:
(i) § 126.4(a)(1) or (3);
(ii) § 126.4(b)(1); or
(iii) § 126.4(a)(2) or (b)(2) when the export is destined for Russia and in support of government space cooperation; or
(3) When the recipient is a U.S. Government department or agency.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
Table 2 to Paragraph (d)(2)
Country | Country specific paragraph location
Afghanistan | See also paragraph (g) of this section.
Cambodia | See also paragraph (o) of this section.
Central African Republic | See also paragraph (u) of this section.
Cyprus | See also paragraph (r) of this section.
Democratic Republic of the Congo | See also paragraph (i) of this section.
Eritrea | See also paragraph (h) of this section.
Ethiopia | See also paragraph (n) of this section.
Haiti | See also paragraph (j) of this section.
Iraq | See also paragraph (f) of this section.
Lebanon | See also paragraph (t) of this section.
Libya | See also paragraph (k) of this section.
Nicaragua | See also paragraph (p) of this section.
Russia | See also paragraph (l) of this section.
Somalia | See also paragraph (m) of this section.
South Sudan | See also paragraph (w) of this section.
Sudan | See also paragraph (v) of this section.
Zimbabwe | See also paragraph (s) of this section.
* * * * *
(f) Iraq. * * *
(1) Non-lethal military equipment; or
* * * * *
(i) Democratic Republic of the Congo. * * *
(1) Defense articles and defense services for the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
* * * * *
(4) Non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, and related technical assistance and training; or
* * * * *
(j) Haiti. It is the policy of the United States to deny licenses or other approvals for exports or imports of defense articles and defense services destined for or originating in Haiti, except that a license or other approval may be issued, on a case-by-case basis, for:
(1) Defense articles and defense services to or by the United Nations, a United Nations-authorized mission, or a security unit that operates under the command of the Government of Haiti, intended to be used by or in coordination with those entities and intended solely to further the objectives of peace and stability in Haiti;
(2) Other defense articles and defense services as approved in advance by the committee of the United Nations Security Council concerned with Haiti; or
(3) Non-lethal defense articles intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, and related defense services, when intended to further the objectives of peace and stability in Haiti.
(k) Libya. * * *
(5) Non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, and related technical assistance or training;
(6) Other sales or supply of arms and related materiel, or provision of assistance or personnel, as approved in advance by the Committee of the Security Council concerning Libya;
(7) Protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Libya by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media, and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel, for their personal use only;
(8) Defense services to Libyan security forces intended solely to promote the process of reunification of Libyan military and security institutions, as well as associated temporary exports of defense articles intended solely for use by the non-Libyan providers of those defense services for delivery of those services and for their protective use, as notified in advance to the committee of the United Nations Security Council concerned with Libya; or
(9) Military aircraft and or naval vessels temporarily exported by the U.S. Government into the territory of Libya solely to deliver items or facilitate activities otherwise exempted or not covered by the United Nations's arms embargo on Libya, including humanitarian assistance, as well as defense articles for defensive purposes that remain at all times aboard the vessel or aircraft while temporarily in Libya or on the person of any non-Libyan personnel temporarily disembarked from such vessel or aircraft.
(l) Russia. It is the policy of the United States to deny licenses or other approvals for exports of defense articles and defense services destined for Russia, except that a license or other approval may be issued, on a case-by-case basis, for government space cooperation.
(m) Somalia. It is the policy of the United States to deny licenses or other approvals for exports of defense articles and defense services destined for Somalia, except that a license or other approval may be issued, on a case-by-case basis, for:
(1) Defense articles and defense services to the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Somali National Army, the Somali National Intelligence and Security Agency, the Somali National Police Force, and the Somali Custodial Corps;
(2) Defense articles and defense services intended solely for the support of, or use by:
(i) United Nations personnel, including United Nations Transitional Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNTMIS) and United Nations Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS);
(ii) African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), and the troop- and police-contributing countries to AUSSOM; or
(iii) European Union training and support activities, Turkey, the United Kingdom, or the United States, as well as any other United Nations Member State forces, with a status of forces agreement or a memorandum of understanding with the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia;
(3) Supplies of protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Somalia by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media, private security contractors and humanitarian development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only;
(4) The delivery of non-lethal military equipment by States, or international, regional or subregional organizations intended solely for humanitarian or protective use; or
(5) Entry into Somali ports for temporary visits of vessels carrying weapons and military equipment for defensive purposes provided that such items remain at all times aboard such vessels.
* * * * *
(u) Central African Republic. It is the policy of the United States to deny licenses or other approvals for exports or imports of defense articles and defense services destined for or originating from armed groups and associated individuals operating within the Central African Republic.
(v) Sudan. * * *
(2) Supplies of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian, human rights monitoring, or protective uses and related technical training and assistance; or
(3) Personal protective gear for the personal use of United Nations personnel, human rights monitors, representatives of the media, and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel.
(w) South Sudan. It is the policy of the United States to deny licenses or other approvals for exports of defense articles and defense services destined for South Sudan, except that a license or other approval may be issued, on a case-by-case basis, for:
(1) Defense articles and defense services intended solely for support of, or use by, United Nations personnel, including the United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) and the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA);
(2) Non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, and related technical assistance or training as notified in advance to the United Nations Security Council committee concerned with South Sudan;
(3) Protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to South Sudan by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media, and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel, for their personal use only;
(4) Defense articles and defense services temporarily exported to South Sudan by the forces of a State which is taking action, in accordance with international law, solely and directly to facilitate the protection or evacuation of its nationals and those for whom it has consular responsibility in South Sudan, as notified to the committee of the United Nations Security Council concerned with South Sudan;
(5) Defense articles and defense services to or in support of the African Union Regional Task Force intended solely for regional operations to counter the Lord's Resistance Army, as notified in advance to the committee of the United Nations Security Council concerned with South Sudan;
(6) Defense articles and defense services solely in support of the implementation of the terms of the peace agreement, as approved in advance by the committee of the United Nations Security Council concerned with South Sudan;
(7) Any other defense articles or defense services as approved in advance by the committee of the United Nations Security Council concerned with South Sudan; or
(8) Non-lethal military equipment solely in support of the implementation of the peace agreement, and related technical assistance or training on non-lethal military equipment.
Brent T. Christensen,

Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Department of State.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2025-0484]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Redfish Bay, Aransas Pass, TX

AGENCY:
Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:
Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters in the Redfish Bay, Aransas Pass, Texas. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a fireworks display launched from Conn Brown Harbor. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi or a designated representative.

DATES:
This rule is effective on July 5, 2025, between 9:15 p.m. and 10 p.m.

ADDRESSES:
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2025-0484 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, in the Document Type column, select “Supporting & Related Material.”

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Timothy Cardenas, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (361) 244-4784, email Timothy.J.Cardenas@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on May 27, 2025, and must establish this safety zone by July 5, 2025, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display. The Coast Guard therefor lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then a period to consider those comments before issuing the rule.
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 Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because prompt action is needed to the potential safety hazards associated with fireworks launched from Conn Brown Harbor over the waters of Redfish Bay.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display, occurring from 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 5, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone within the waters of the Redfish Bay area within a 600-foot radius around the launching platform from which the display will be launched. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display occurs.

IV. Discussion of the Rule
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on the night of July 5, 2025. The safety zone area encompasses a 600-foot radius around the launching platform at Conn Brown Harbor in Redfish Bay, at 27°54′33.94″ N, 97°7′50.65″ W. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at (361) 939-0450. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Safety Marine Information Broadcasts to advise the public of this safety zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses
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.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This regulatory action determination is based on the small size and short duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone will be enforced for the short period of less than one hour, on the night of July 5, 2025, when vessel traffic is normally low. The zone is limited to a 600-foot radius around the fireworks launching position over the navigable waters of Redfish Bay. The rule does not completely restrict the traffic within a waterway and allows mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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.

F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Redfish Bay in a zone defined by a 600-foot radius around the launching platform, located at the following point: 27°54′33.94″ N, 97°7′50.65″ W. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
2. Add § 165.T08-0484 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0484
Safety Zone; Redfish Bay, Aransas Pass, TX
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable waters of Redfish Bay encompassed by a 600-foot radius around the launch platform, located at the following point: 27°54′33.94″ N, 97°7′50.65″ W. These coordinates are based on World Geodetic System (WGS) 84.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Corpus Christi (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by contacting them on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at (361) 939-0450. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
(d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on July 5, 2025, from 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m.
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Torrey H. Bertheau,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2025-0483]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY:
Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:
Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters with a 900-foot radius in the Corpus Christi Bay. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a fireworks launch. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi.

DATES:
This rule is effective from July 4, 2025, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 10 p.m.

ADDRESSES:
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2025-0483 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, in the Document Type column, select “Supporting & Related Material.”

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Timothy Cardenas, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (361) 244-4784, email Timothy.J.Cardenas@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 2, 2025, and must establish this safety zone by July 4, 2025, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display. The Coast Guard therefore lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then a period to consider those comments before issuing the rule.
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 Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because prompt action is needed to the potential safety hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge over the waters of Corpus Christi Bay.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display, occurring from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone within the waters of the Corpus Christi Bay area within a 900-foot radius around the barge from which the display will be launched. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display occurs.

IV. Discussion of the Rule
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on the night of July 4, 2025. The safety zone area encompasses a 900-foot radius around the fireworks barge in Corpus Christi Bay, at approximately 27°47′44.1″ N, 97°22′54.6″ W. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at (361) 939-0450. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Safety Marine Information Broadcasts to advise the public of this safety zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses
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.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This regulatory action determination is based on the small size and short duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone will be enforced for the short period of one hour, on the night of July 4, 2025, when vessel traffic is normally low. The zone is limited to a 900-foot radius around the fireworks launching position in the navigable waters of Corpus Christi Bay. The rule does not completely restrict the traffic within a waterway and allows mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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.

F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Corpus Christi Bay in a zone defined by a 900-foot radius around a fireworks barge, located at approximately: 27°47′44.1″ N, 97°22′54.6″ W. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
2. Add § 165.T08-0483 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0483
Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi, TX
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Bay encompassed by a 900-foot radius around the fireworks barge, located at approximately: 27°47′44.1″ N, 97°22′54.6″ W. These coordinates are based on World Geodetic System (WGS) 84.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Corpus Christi (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at (361) 939-0450. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
(d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on July 4, 2025, from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m.
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Torrey H. Bertheau,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2025-0389]
RIN 1625-AA00
Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone; Hampton River, Hampton, NH

AGENCY:
Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:
Temporary interim rule and request for comments.

SUMMARY:
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated navigation area and a safety zone on the Hampton River at the inlet to Hampton Harbor, Hampton, NH, in response to hazardous conditions created by construction activities for the Neil R. Underwood Seabrook-Hampton Harbor Bridge replacement project. The RNA will establish a speed restriction and a traffic pattern. The safety zone, when enforced, will prohibit all vessel traffic from transiting through or operating within 50 yards of the bridge(s) center span navigational channel. This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life in the areas undergoing demolition and construction.

DATES:
This rule is effective without actual notice from July 7, 2025 through 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2030. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 1, 2025, until July 7, 2025. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before October 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Although this regulation is published as an interim rule without prior notice, public comment is nevertheless desirable to ensure that the regulation is both workable and reasonable while the rule remains in effect. If the Coast Guard determines on the basis of comments submitted that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, we will publish a temporary final rule, or other document, as appropriate. You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2025-0389 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2025-0389 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, in the Document Type column, select “Supporting & Related Material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management at Coast Guard First District, telephone 571-607-6314, email Craig.D.Lapiejko@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NHDOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
§ Section
TIR Temporary Interim Rule
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History
In 2023, the Coast Guard received notification from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) concerning the replacement of the Neil R. Underwood Memorial Bridge that carries NH 1A Ocean Boulevard traffic over the Hampton River from the town of Seabrook, NH, to the town of Hampton, NH. The project includes the removal of the existing movable single leaf bascule span bridge and construction of a new fixed high-level steel girder bridge built on a new alignment approximately 60 feet west (shoreward) of the existing bridge.
Major construction activity began earlier this year with a temporary trestle being installed west of the new bridge location to provide access for the new bridge construction. Once the temporary trestle is installed, drilled shaft foundations will be installed for the new piers. Next, cofferdams will be installed to construct the footings for piers 1 and 6, while precast concrete forms will be installed to construct the footings for piers 2 through 5. Once the pier footings are constructed, the cofferdams will be removed, and the remaining pier construction will commence. Abutments will be constructed, followed by the superstructure. Once the new bridge is constructed, the temporary trestle will be removed and installed east of the old bridge to provide construction access for old bridge removal.
Although waterway traffic will be maintained within the existing federal navigational channel during construction and demolition activities, some equipment barges may block half the navigation channel. The restricted channel, along with heavy seasonal traffic and strong tidal currents, creates a hazardous condition.
Based on the hazardous condition created by this construction, the First Coast Guard District Commander has determined that establishment of a temporary RNA and safety zone through rulemaking is warranted to ensure the safety of life, property, and the environment within the regulated area.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (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)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest since the hazardous conditions are being presented now. For the same justification, the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists to issue the rule prior to providing notice and taking comments because it would delay promulgating a rule. Construction to replace the Neil R. Underwood Bridge is currently underway, creating a hazardous condition, therefore there is an urgent need for the RNA and safety zone to protect the safety of both the construction crew and the waterway users operating in the vicinity of the bridge construction. An interruption of the project to accommodate a full notice and comment period would also delay necessary operations, result in increased costs, and postponement to the completion date of the bridge project and subsequent reopening of the replacement to the Neil R. Underwood Bridge for normal operations.
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 Federal Register considering the hazardous conditions created by the replacement of the bridge. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the hazardous condition created by the replacement of the bridge.
Although this regulation is published as an interim rule without prior notice, public comment is nevertheless desirable to ensure that the regulation is both workable and reasonable. Accordingly, persons wishing to comment may do so by submitting written comments as set out under ADDRESSES in this preamble. Commenters should include their names and addresses, identify the docket number for the regulation, and give reasons for their comments. If the Coast Guard determines that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, we will publish a temporary final rule or other appropriate document.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Commander of the First Coast Guard District has determined that potential hazards associated with this bridge construction will continue to exist through December 31, 2030, creating a safety concern for anyone transiting the Hampton River in the vicinity of the Seabrook-Hampton Bridge removal and replacement bridge construction project. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the regulated area while bridge replacement operations are taking place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule
This rule establishes both an RNA and, when enforced, a safety zone from July 1, 2025, through 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2030.
First, the Coast Guard is creating a RNA, as shown in figure 1, to include all navigable waters of the Hampton River, mile 0.0, at the inlet to Hampton Harbor, Hampton, NH, surface to bottom, encompassed by a line connecting the following approximate positions, 42°53′41.59″ N 070°48′29.064″ W (Hampton Harbor North Jetty Daybeacon “8” LLNR 8945); thence along the jetty to 42°53′48.1″ N 070°48′38.4″ W; thence along the shore line to 42°53′50.9″ N 070°48′58.2″ W (center Hampton Bridge north side approach); thence along the shore line to 42°53′56.52″ N 070°49′4.77″ W (Hampton State Pier); thence to 42°53′55.73″ N 070°49′12.72″ W; thence to 42°53′41.78″ N 070°49′14.11″ W; thence to 42°53′41.67″ N 070°49′8.63″ W” (Harborside Dunes); thence along the shore to 42°53′41.09″ N 070°49′0.87″ W (center Hampton Bridge south side approach); thence along the shore to 42°53′33.077″ N 070°48′38.724″ W (Hampton Harbor South Daybeacon “H” LLNR 8955); thence to the point of origin, expressed in Degrees (°) Minutes (′) Seconds (″) (DMS) based on North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

Figure 1 Chartlet Showing the Boundaries of the RNA
The RNA will establish the following operating restrictions on vessels:
(i) Entry and movement within the RNA is subject to a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit. All vessels may not produce a wake and may not attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway.
(ii) Any vessel transiting through the RNA must make a direct passage. No vessel may stop, fish, moor, anchor, or loiter within the RNA at any time.
(iii) Vessels may not pass (overtake) another vessel within the RNA.
(iv) Only one vessel is permitted to pass through the center span navigational channel of the bridge(s) at any given time.
(v) Except when transiting through the center span navigation channel, no vessel or craft may operate within 20 feet of the bridge(s).
(vi) The operator of any vessel transiting in the RNA must comply with all lawful directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's on-scene representative.
In addition to the prohibitions stated above the Coast Guard is establishing a temporary traffic pattern within the RNA to manage vessel traffic. The traffic pattern, as shown below in figure 2, is positioned around the shallow waters of Hampton Harbor and will be marked with temporary aids to navigation. The western and southern sides of the shallow area will support two-way traffic. One-way traffic will flow northbound between the eastern side of the shallow waters and the Neil R. Underwood Bridge/Seabrook-Hampton Harbor Bridge. The northern side of the shallow area will accommodate one-way traffic moving west.

Figure 2 Chartlet Showing Traffic Pattern Within the RNA
Second, this rule establishes a safety zone from July 1, 2025, through 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2030. While the safety zone will be effective through this period, it will only be enforced during active construction operations, when work being conducted by barges and cranes placed in the narrow center span navigable channel dictate enforcement, or other instances which may create a hazard to navigation.
The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 50-yard radius of the center point of the Neil R. Underwood Seabrook-Hampton Harbor Bridge, Hampton River, mile 0.0, at the inlet to Hampton Harbor, Hampton, NH, surface to bottom, in approximate positions, 42°53′46.2″ N 70°48′59.6″ W, expressed in Degrees (°) Minutes (′) Seconds (″) (DMS) based on North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). When subject to enforcement, no unauthorized vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
The Coast Guard will make notice of the safety zone via the Local Notice to Mariners and issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) as soon as practicable in response to an emergency or hazardous condition.
Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zone must request authorization from the COTP or the COTP's on-scene designated representative on VHF-16 or via phone at 833-449-2407 (Sector Northern New England Command Center). Vessels must comply with directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's on-scene designated representative.
The Coast Guard is publishing this rule to be effective through December 31, 2030, to encompass any construction delays due to weather or other unforeseen circumstances. If the project is completed before December 31, 2030, enforcement of the RNA and safety zone will be suspended, and notice given via Local Notice to Mariners. The First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners can be found at: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov.
Additional information about the replacement of the Neil R. Underwood Bridge can be found at https://www.dot.nh.gov/projects-plans-and-programs/project-center/seabrook-hampton-15904.
The COTP maintains a telephone line that is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The public can obtain information concerning enforcement of the regulated navigation area and safety zone by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Command Center at (833) 449-2407.

V. Regulatory Analyses
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.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and location of the regulated area. The RNA covers only a small portion of the navigable waterway which includes the Federal navigation channel and will not prohibit vessel traffic. Rather, this RNA will primarily establish a speed and wake restriction and a traffic pattern along the waters surrounding the Neil R. Underwood Seabrook-Hampton Harbor Bridge. There may be times that the Coast Guard will prohibit vessel traffic through the safety zone, but such closures are expected to take place on very limited occasions. Moreover, even when the Coast Guard generally prohibits vessel traffic through the safety zone, vessels may still obtain permission to transit through the safety zone. Lastly, the Coast Guard will provide the public with advanced notification of waterway closures so that mariners may plan accordingly and adjust their route. Such notifications will be made through various means, including, but not limited to, Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM). For all these reasons, the Coast Guard has determined that this proposed rulemaking would not be a significant regulatory action.

B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this proposed rule will 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 rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
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 temporary 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 rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 potential effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves restricting vessel movement within a regulated navigation area and safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments
Although we are promulgating this as a temporary interim rule for lack of time to take comments prior to issuing the rule, we view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. 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.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2025-0056 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule for alternate instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the rule, you should see a “Subscribe” option for email alerts. The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is published.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
2. Add § 165.T01-0389 to read as follows:
§ 165.T01-0389
Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone; Hampton River, Hampton, NH.
(a) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area (RNA):
(1) “RNA”: all navigable waters of the Hampton River, mile 0.0, at the inlet to Hampton Harbor, Hampton, NH, surface to bottom, encompassed by a line connecting the following approximate positions, 42°53′41.59″ N 070°48′29.064″ W (Hampton Harbor North Jetty Daybeacon “8” LLNR 8945); thence along the jetty to 42°53′48.1″ N 070°48′38.4″ W; thence along the shore line to 42°53′50.9″ N 070°48′58.2″ W (center Hampton Bridge north side approach); thence along the shore line to 42°53′56.52″ N 070°49′4.77″ W (Hampton State Pier); thence to 42°53′55.73″ N 070°49′12.72″ W; thence to 42°53′41.78″ N 070°49′14.11″ W; thence to 42°53′41.67″ N 070°49′8.63″ W” (Harborside Dunes); thence along the shore to 42°53′41.09″ N 070°49′0.87″ W (center Hampton Bridge south side approach); thence along the shore to 42°53′33.077″ N 070°48′38.724″ W (Hampton Harbor South Daybeacon “H” LLNR 8955); thence to the point of origin, expressed in Degrees (°) Minutes (′) Seconds (″) (DMS) based on North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
(b) Location. The following area is a safety zone:
(1) “Safety Zone”: all navigable waters within a 50-yard radius of the center point of the Neil R. Underwood Brid Seabrook-Hampton Harbor Bridge, Hampton River, mile 0.0, at the inlet to Hampton Harbor, Hampton, NH, surface to bottom, in approximate positions, 42°53′46.2″ N 70°48′59.6″ W, expressed in Degrees (°) Minutes (′) Seconds (″) (DMS) based on North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
(c) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the First Coast Guard District Commander in the enforcement of the safety zones. Local officer means any officer, agent, or employee of a unit of local government authorized by law or by a local government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of criminal law.
(d) RNA Regulations. In addition to the general RNA regulations in § 165.13, the following regulations apply to the RNA described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) Nothing in this regulation relieves any vessel, owner, operator, charterer, master, or person directing the movement of a vessel, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with this part or any other applicable law or regulation ( i.e., the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS) or 33 CFR part 84—Subchapter E, Inland Navigation Rules) or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(2) Entry and movement within the RNA is subject to a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit. All vessels may not produce a wake and may not attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway.
(3) Any vessel transiting through the RNA must make a direct passage. No vessel may stop, fish, moor, anchor, or loiter within the RNA at any time.
(4) Vessels may not pass (overtake) another vessel within the RNA.
(5) Only one vessel is permitted to pass through the center span navigational channel of the bridge(s) at any given time.
(6) The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary traffic pattern within the RNA to manage vessel traffic. The traffic pattern, as shown below in figure 1, is positioned around the shallow waters of Hampton Harbor and will be marked with temporary aids to navigation. The western and southern sides of the shallow area will support two-way traffic. One-way traffic will flow northbound between the eastern side of the shallow waters and the Neil R. Underwood Bridge/Seabrook-Hampton Harbor Bridge. The northern side of the shallow area will accommodate one-way traffic moving west.

Figure 1 Chartlet Showing Traffic Pattern Within the RNA
(7) Except for transiting through the center span, no vessel or craft may operate within 20 feet of the bridge(s).
(8) The operator of any vessel transiting in the RNA must comply with all lawful directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's on-scene representative.
(d) Enforcement period. The RNA will be enforced from 12:01 a.m. July 1, 2025, through 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2030.
(e) Safety Zone Regulations. In addition to the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23, the following regulations apply to the “Safety Zone” described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) During each enforcement period, only vessel authorized by COTP may enter or remain in this safety zone.
(2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zone must request authorization from the COTP or the COTP's on-scene designated representative on VHF-16 or via phone at 833-449-2407 (Sector Northern New England Command Center). Vessels must comply with directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's on-scene designated representative.
(f) Effective and Enforcement periods. This safety zone will be effective from 12:01 a.m. July 1, 2025, through 11:59 p.m. on Decmember 31, 2030 but will only be enforced during active construction within the main span navigational channel or other instances which may cause a hazard to navigation as determined by the COTP. The COTP will make notification of the exact dates and times in advance of each closure period of the safety zone to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners and will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) as soon as practicable in response to an emergency.
(g) Early Completion. If the project is completed before December 31, 2030, enforcement of the RNA and safety zone will be suspended, and notice given via Local Notice to Mariners. The First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners can be found at: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov.
M.E. Platt,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 668
Classification of Revenue Under Title IV

AGENCY:
Office of the Secretary, Department of Education.

ACTION:
Interpretive rule.

SUMMARY:
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) is revising its prior interpretation and clarifying its classification of revenue received by a proprietary institution of higher education under the Title IV Revenue and Non-Federal Education Assistance Funds regulations called the “90/10 Rule”.

DATES:
July 7, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrea Drew, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Email: andrea.drew@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
Section 487(a)(24) of the HEA establishes the requirement in the Federal Student Aid Program Participation Agreement that proprietary institutions derive not less than 10 percent of their revenue from non-federal sources. Among other things, Section 487(d) of the HEA defines how proprietary institutions calculate the percentage of their revenue that is derived from non-federal sources and outlines sanctions for proprietary institutions that fail to meet the requirement in Section 487(a). On March 11, 2021, the ARP was signed into law. Section 2013 of the ARP amended the scope of the revenue requirements under Section 487(a) of the HEA. Prior to the enactment of the ARP, as a condition for participation in the Title IV, HEA programs, institutions had to derive not less than 10 percent of their revenue from sources other than the federal student assistance programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA. The ARP amended that provision by requiring proprietary institutions to derive not less than 10 percent of their revenue from non-federal education sources.
On October 28, 2022, the Department published a final rule to amend the Department's regulations relating to the 90/10 Rule under (34 CFR 668.28). The final rule amended several parts of the 90/10 Rule to implement the ARP, among other things. In addition to specific amendments to the regulatory text, the Department also announced in the preamble that it was restricting the ability of institutions to include non-federal revenue received for educational programs that are ineligible for HEA Title IV funding from programs offered through distance education or at unapproved locations. In relevant part and in response to a public comment, the Department stated it appreciated “the commenter's support for allowing institutions to include revenue from an ineligible program offered at an employer facility” though it disagreed “with commenters that we should allow proprietary institutions to count funds generated from programs offered at other unapproved locations or through distance education as non-Federal revenue in their 90/10 calculations.” The Department worked with the Committee to develop the language regarding the location of ineligible programs and believes that the regulations strike a balance between providing necessary consumer protections guardrails for purposes of 90/10, while allowing proprietary institutions to incorporate revenue from non-Title IV programs of value to students at other approved locations that provide Title IV programs and from their main campus.
The Department also noted that “guardrails negotiated by the Committee require proprietary institutions to exclude revenue generated from ineligible programs offered through distance education. Restricting program revenues for 90/10 to sources from approved locations will better provide a nexus for those ineligible programs to be offered by the institution's instructors.” Doing so “also ensure[s] that the programs are offered from locations that have authorization from an institution's accrediting agency and from the states in which they are located.”
The Department believed “limiting these ineligible programs from distance education or from unapproved locations will also permit greater oversight of the reported revenues by the Department.” It found that “after weighing the potential benefits and risks, the Department has determined that the risk of abuse outweighs the potential benefits.” Therefore, the Department declined “to allow institutions to include revenue generated from these ineligible programs in their 90/10 calculations. We further note that these regulations only govern revenue generated from ineligible programs that an institution counts in its 90/10 calculation and does not exclude a proprietary institution's ability to offer these programs.”87 FR 65450.
But the Department did not include amendments in the final rule to the actual regulatory text or the accompanying Appendix to incorporate the assertions contained within the preamble text cited above. The Department simply refers to “location” in 34 CFR 668.28(a)(3)(iii) but does not specify the modality of instruction. When calculating revenue for the purposes of eligible programs under the 90/10 Rule, the regulation makes no distinction between distance education and in-person instruction. As a result, if the Department intended to break new ground in the regulation by creating a new distinction for ineligible programs (despite there being no distinction for ineligible program under Section 487(a)(24) of the HEA), one would expect it to do so on clear terms. But the Department did not make any substantive changes to the 90/10 Rule explicitly relating to modality in the final rule itself; nor did it make any changes between its proposal in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the final rule.

II. The Preamble Cannot Be Used To Add Substantive Duties That the Regulations Do Not Contain
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) enables agencies to publish interpretive rules outside the informal notice-and-comment rulemaking process. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), (d)(2). Unlike legislative rules, “interpretive rules do not have the force and effect of law and are not accorded that weight in the adjudicatory process.” Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015)(internal citations omitted). Interpretive rules are “issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995). A legal interpretation articulated in the preamble to a final rule has not gone through notice and comment rulemaking and so cannot legally have a binding effect. See Wilgar Land Co., 85 F.4th at 837 (holding that a preamble that responds to comments as part of a final rule is an interpretive rule); Fertilizer Inst. v. EPA, 935 F.2d 1303, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (concluding that the preamble was an interpretive, not legislative, rule). In other words, agencies “cannot use preambles to add substantive duties that the regulations themselves do not contain.” Wilgar Land Co., 85 F.4th at 837. Id.
“The critical distinction between legislative and interpretative rules is that, whereas interpretive rules simply state what the administrative agency thinks the statute means, and only remind affected parties of existing duties, a legislative rule imposes new rights or duties.” Iowa League of Cities v. EPA, 711 F.3d 844, 873 (8th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). In determining whether a rule is legislative or interpretive, courts consider whether the agency intended to speak with the force of law. See Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 18 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (citing Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2122, (2016)). In other words, if the agency used language that conveys that its pronouncements must be followed, the rule is legislative; by contrast, interpretive rules use permissive language that does not purport to bind private actions. Id.
Here, the Department's discussion in the preamble text uses language that purports to bind private action in calculating the revenue percentages under the 90/10 Rule. Indeed, the Department wrote, “we decline to allow institutions to include revenue generated from these ineligible programs in their 90/10 calculations.” The phrase “we decline to allow” is another way of saying “we prohibit.” Prohibitions are mandatory, not permissive. Therefore, the preamble most resembles a legislative rule because it claims to categorically prohibit certain types of private conduct, namely prohibiting institutions from including revenue generated from certain ineligible programs in their 90/10 calculations.
As discussed above, legislative rules must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking and cannot be included in the preamble text to a final rule. Yet here, the Department did not include any changes to the regulatory text to incorporate the preamble text quoted herein. Of note, the Department's regulations include eight separate categories of types of revenue that are excluded from revenue calculation for the purpose of calculating the 90/10 Rule. 34 CFR 668.28(a)(6)(i)-(viii). The Department could have added additional categories of excluded revenue to 34 CFR 668.28(a)(6), but it declined to do so. Thus, because the Department did not make the changes to the actual regulatory text, the preamble text cited above is non-binding and does not have the force of law.

III. The 90/10 Rule May Include Revenue Generated From Ineligible Programs
As discussed above, the Department believes the preamble was procedurally deficient under the APA; however, even if the Department had properly created a distinction for these ineligible programs under the 90/10 regulations, it is clear that such a regulation would have been unlawful. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024) (holding that if a federal agency's interpretation of a federal statute is not the best reading of the law, then it is not permissible). Section 487(a)(24) of the HEA provides that to be eligible for Title IV programs, proprietary institutions of higher education must “derive not less than ten percent of such institution's revenues from sources other than federal funds that are disbursed or delivered to or on behalf of a student to be used to attend such institution . . .” In making these calculations, Section 487(d)(1) provides very prescriptive rules regarding what revenue is to be included in the institution's calculation of “federal funds” (the `90' side) and what other sources of funds may be counted (the `10' side).
As it pertains to the inclusion of revenue from ineligible programs, section 487(d)(1)(B)(iii) provides that institutions consider as revenue only those funds generated by the institution from:
(iii) funds paid by a student, or on behalf of a student by a party other than the institution, for an education or training program that is not eligible for funds under this title, if the program—
(I) is approved or licensed by the appropriate State agency;
(II) is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary; or
(III) provides an industry-recognized credential or certification.
When interpreting the statute, the text should be construed as a whole, as statutory enactments contain interrelated parts that may provide context when construing one of its parts. See Scalia & Garner, Reading Law 167 (2012); United Savings Ass'n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988) (a statutory “provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme—because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law” (internal citation omitted)); Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 583 U.S. 366, 378 (2018) (considering “[t]he language of [the statutory provision at issue], the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader statutory structure”); Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 139 (2010) (“Ultimately, context determines meaning.”)
Congress's careful construction of subsection (iii) is authoritative. Unlike the interpretation in the preamble, nothing contained within the clause directs the Secretary to consider the modality of educational delivery, such as distance education. Here, when considering the broader statutory enactment throughout the HEA, it is clear that Congress knows how to create distinct rules for distance education programs when it wishes to do so. See Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 216 (2005) (“Congress has included an express overt-act requirement in at least 22 other current conspiracy statutes, clearly demonstrating that it knows how to impose such a requirement when it wishes to do so”). Within the text of the HEA, Congress has used the phrase “distance education” 44 times, oftentimes creating distinct rules for such programs under the HEA. Here, the Department presumes that, if Congress had wanted to create a distinction for revenue from distance education programs for the purposes of the 90/10 Rule, it would have said so. It did not, so neither may the Department.
In the same way, and unlike the language of the preamble, subsection (iii) does not authorize the Secretary to engage in a process of “weighing the potential benefits and risks” of including or excluding certain types of revenue. There is no indication in the statute that Congress intended to delegate that sort of legislative judgment to the Secretary. Instead, Congress wrote a granular formula for calculating revenue directly into the statute, leaving little-to-no room for regulatory interpretation, and certainly no room for a policy exercise of “weighing the potential benefits and risks.”
Finally, subsection (iii) does not speak of “unapproved locations,” that are mentioned in the preamble. To the contrary, it creates a disjunctive three-part test for including revenue from ineligible programs. So long as funds are “paid by a student, or on behalf of a student by a party other than the institution” such revenue may be included if any of the following criteria are met: (1) the program is approved or licensed by the appropriate State agency; (2) the program is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary; or (3) the program provides an industry-recognized credential or certification. 20 U.S.C. 1094(d)(1)(b)(iii)
As shown above, none of the subclauses under subsection (iii) deal with the location of instruction, physical or otherwise. As such, location is not relevant for the purposes of calculating revenue within this context under the 90/10 Rule.
Finally, the Department notes that regulatory changes made in the ARP only concerned the shifting of certain types of federal revenue received by institutions from the `10' side to the `90' side of the 90/10 Rule. The ARP did not make any specific amendments to the 90/10 Rule to reduce the overall amount of revenue. Although the Department was not limited in its rulemaking to making regulatory amendments to exclusively implement the ARP, Congress also could have made changes to exclude other types of revenue from the 90/10 Rule if it wanted to within the ARP. Congress chose not to do so, which provides some evidence that Congress was satisfied with the statutory and regulatory balance that had already been struck relating to the inclusion of revenue for certain types of ineligible programs. This provides further evidence that the interpretive rule within the preamble conflicts with the carefully crafted statutory design.
Interpretive rules do not have effective dates and, as such, institutions may revise their revenue calculations under 34 CFR 668.28 for fiscal years that have already concluded. See Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

IV. Conclusions
The Department's interpretation announced herein supersedes the interpretive rule that was published in the preamble to the 2022 final rule. This interpretation represents the Department's current interpretation and may be consulted by the Department when enforcing the 90/10 Rule. But this interpretation is not binding on regulated entities or the Department.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Signing Authority
This document of the U.S. Department of Education was signed on July 1, 2025, by Linda E. McMahon, Secretary of Education. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by the U.S. Department of Education. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned has been authorized to sign the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the U.S. Department of Education. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .
Tracey St. Pierre,

Director, Office of the Executive Secretariat, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0174; FRL-12731-02-R3]
Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze State implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by West Virginia (West Virginia, WV, or the State) on August 12, 2022, to address applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the regional haze program's second implementation period. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the CAA.

DATES:
This final rule is effective on August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0174. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through www.regulations.gov, o r please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Gordon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2852, at (215) 814-2039, or by email at gordon.mike@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Summary of the Proposed Action and the EPA's Reasons for This Final Action
III. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Action and Responses to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?
The EPA is approving West Virginia's regional haze SIP revision for the second implementation period, also referred to as the second planning period. As required by section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls for State and Federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas, known as mandatory Class I Federal areas. ^1 The rule requires the States, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and other interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) ( e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors ( e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 )). As discussed in our proposed rulemaking, in section III of this preamble, and in the accompanying Response to Comments (RTC) document, the EPA finds that West Virginia's regional haze SIP meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for the regional haze second planning period.
^1 See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.

II. Summary of the Proposed Action and the EPA's Reasons for This Final Action

A. Summary of the Proposed Action
On August 12, 2022, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) submitted a revision to the West Virginia SIP to address regional haze for the second planning period. WV DEP submitted this SIP revision to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308.
The EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing disapproval of West Virginia's August 12, 2022 SIP revision on January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6932). The public comment period closed on February 20, 2025. During that public notice-and-comment period, the EPA received six sets of comments. The full text of comments received on that NPRM are available via Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2024-0625 at www.regulations.gov.
The EPA subsequently published a new NPRM on April 18, 2025 (90 FR 16478), that withdrew the NPRM published on January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6932), commenced a public notice-and-comment period via Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0174, and proposed to fully approve all elements of West Virginia's August 12, 2022 SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the CAA and RHR. In the April 18, 2025 NPRM, the EPA also announced a new policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I Federal area impacted by a State are below the Unform Rate of Progress (URP) and the State has considered the four statutory factors, the State will have presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area. The NPRM provided background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, summarized West Virginia's regional haze SIP submittal, and explained the EPA's rationale for its proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated in full here.

B. Reasons for This Final Action
In this final action, the EPA is affirming that it is now the Agency's policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I Federal area impacted by a State are below the URP and the State has considered the four statutory factors, the State will have presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area. The EPA acknowledges that this final action reflects a change in policy as to how the URP should be used in the evaluation of regional haze second planning period SIPs but believes that this policy better aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR: achieving “reasonable” progress towards natural visibility.
As described in the April 18, 2025 (90 FR 16478) NPRM, the EPA has discretion and authority to change policy. In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court plainly stated that an agency is free to change a prior policy and “need not demonstrate . . . that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better.” 566 U.S. 502, 515 (2009) (referencing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)). See also Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015).
The Class I areas impacted by emissions from WV are all below the URP, and WV's SIP submittal demonstrated that the state took into consideration the four reasonable progress factors listed in CAA 169A(g)(1) ^2 with respect to an adequate number of emissions sources. Thus, the EPA has determined that WV's SIP revision is fully approvable under the Agency's new policy. Indeed, we think this policy better aligns with the statutory goal because it recognizes the considerable improvements in visibility impairment that have been made by a wide variety of State and Federal programs in recent decades. ^3
^2 The four statutory factors required to be taken into consideration in determining reasonable progress are: the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements. CAA section 169(g)(1).
^3 In addition, as we noted in the NPRM, certain commenters advocated for this policy during the public comment period for the NPRM that was published on April 18, 2025 (90 FR 16478), including Monongahela Power Company (Mon Power), the owner of two of the power plants selected for evaluation in the SIP submittal. See Mon Power's February 20, 2025 comment letter.
Understanding what the URP is and how it has been used in the context of the RHR is important to understanding the implications of the policy change the EPA is finalizing in this action. In developing the regulations required by CAA section 169A(b), the EPA established the concept of URP for each Class I area. The URP is determined by drawing a straight line from the measured 2000-2004 baseline conditions (in deciviews) for the 20% most impaired days at each Class I area to the estimated 20% most impaired days natural conditions (in deciviews) in 2064. From this calculation, a URP value can be calculated for each year between 2004 and 2064. For each Class I area, there is a regulatory requirement to compare the projected visibility impairment (represented by the reasonable progress goal, or “RPG”) at the end of each planning period to the URP ( e.g., in 2028 for the second planning period). ^4 40 CFR 308(f)(1)(vi). If the projected RPG is above the URP, then an additional “robust demonstration” requirement is triggered for each state that contributes to that Class I Federal area. 40 CFR 308(f)(3)(ii).
^4 We note that RPGs are a regulatory construct that we developed to address statutory mandate in section 169B(e)(1), which required our regulations to include “criteria for measuring `reasonable progress' toward the national goal.” Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii), RPGs measure the progress that is projected to be achieved by the control measures a state has determined are necessary to make reasonable progress. Consistent with the 1999 RHR, the RPGs are unenforceable, though they create a benchmark that allows for analytical comparisons to the URP and mid-implementation-period course corrections if necessary. 82 FR at 3091-3092, January 10, 2017.
In comments on the EPA's January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6932) NPRM, West Virginia explained the following: “The DAQ [WV DEP's Division of Air Quality] asserts progress towards decreasing visibility impairment since the first implementation period has immensely exceeded the expectations of the EPA, States, Federal land managers, and the public, causing an unreasonable belief additional visibility improvement can continue indefinitely at such a rapid pace via arbitrary federally enforceable emissions limits.” ^5 The State also disagreed “with the assertion that its four-factor analysis was insufficient because it did not reach the conclusion additional controls were required.” ^6 Similarly, Mon Power commented that Class I Federal areas “are presently well below the URP glide paths, proving that already implemented past measures have been and continue to be successful.” ^7
^5 See p. 5 of WV DEP's February 19, 2025 comment letter.
^6 See p. 5 of WV DEP's February 19, 2025 comment letter.
^7 See p. 1 of MonPower's February 20, 2025 comment letter.
In the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA addressed the role of the URP as it relates to a State's development of its second planning period SIP. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Specifically, in response to comments suggesting that the URP should be considered a “safe harbor” and relieve States of any obligation to consider the four statutory factors, the EPA explained that the URP was not intended to be such a safe harbor. 82 FR at 3099, January 10, 2017. The EPA summarized such comments as follows:
“Some commenters stated a desire for corresponding rule text dealing with situations where RPGs are equal to (“on”) or better than (“below”) the URP or glidepath. Several commenters stated that the URP or glidepath should be a “safe harbor,” opining that states should be permitted to analyze whether projected visibility conditions for the end of the implementation period will be on or below the glidepath based on on-the-books or on-the-way control measures, and that in such cases a four-factor analysis should not be required.” Id.
Other comments indicated a similar approach, such as “a somewhat narrower entrance to a `safe harbor,' by suggesting that if current visibility conditions are already below the end-of-planning-period point on the URP line, a four-factor analysis should not be required.” Id. The EPA was clear in its response: “We do not agree with either of these recommendations.” The EPA explained its position as follows: “The CAA requires that each SIP revision contain long-term strategies for making reasonable progress, and that in determining reasonable progress states must consider the four statutory factors. Treating the URP as a safe harbor would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement that states assess the potential to make further reasonable progress towards natural visibility goal in every implementation period.” Id. (footnote omitted).
Importantly, the EPA's new policy does not make the URP a safe harbor. The new policy merely creates a presumption that the State's second planning period SIP is making reasonable progress for a Class I Federal Area if the State has taken into consideration the four statutory factors of 169A(g)(1) and that area is below the URP. This is consistent with the CAA and RHR.

III. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Action and Responses to Comments
During the public notice-and-comment period, the EPA received 22 sets of comments on its April 18, 2025 proposal. Seventeen sets of comments supported the EPA's proposed action; these included comments from various state entities, specific utility companies, and coalitions and councils representing utilities. The EPA acknowledges these supportive comments, which are included in the docket for this action.
Five sets of comments were opposed to the EPA's proposed action; these included comments from two individuals, one of the regional planning organizations for visibility, and two coalitions of conservation groups or environmental organizations.
While we address a number of these adverse comments directly in this FRN, our full responses are included in the Response to Comment (RTC) document in the docket for this action. We briefly address in this section: (1) whether the EPA's new policy is consistent with the CAA and RHR; (2) whether the EPA sufficiently justified its basis for the new policy; (3) whether the action is nationally applicable or based on a determination of nationwide scope and effect; (4) whether the action departs from national policy without complying with the EPA's consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56; and (5) whether the WV SIP met the requirements of the new policy.
As detailed at length in the RTC document in the response at III.A.3, the EPA's new policy is consistent with the CAA. Pursuant to CAA 169A(a)(4), Congress explicitly delegated to the EPA the authority to promulgate regulations regarding reasonable progress towards meeting the national goal. As some comments suggest, to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal under 169A(a)(1), Congress mandated “tak[ing] into consideration the cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirement.” CAA 169A(g)(1).
However, nothing in the statute defines what it means “to take into consideration” the four factors under CAA 169A(g)(1). Under this statutory framework, the EPA has been empowered by Congress to give meaning to this statutory phrase. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 395 (2024). The phrase “to take into consideration” implies a broader process not limited to the four statutory factors, allowing states to weigh in other factors, like visibility, to support their determination of whether additional measures are necessary to make reasonable progress at Class I Federal areas. This follows from reasonable progress requiring the improvement of visibility. CAA 169A(b)(2). As such, visibility improvement must be a fundamental part of determining the extent of progress that is considered reasonable.
Being below the URP does not relieve a State of its obligations under the CAA and the RHR to make reasonable progress. Also, being below the URP is not a safe harbor because the EPA still reviews a State's determination of whether additional control measures are necessary for reasonable progress, whether the state submitted those measures for incorporation into the SIP, and whether the measures are consistent with other provisions in the CAA.
As required by the statute, West Virginia took into consideration the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and determined that the sources selected were in compliance with already implemented emission control measures which continue to be successful, and that no additional SO 2 controls were necessary to make reasonable progress. Further, CAA section 169A(b)(2) requires SIPs to include “such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress.” Congress explicitly stated its intent for states to only include mechanisms as may be necessary for a Class I Federal area to achieve reasonable progress. West Virginia concluded that it was not necessary to incorporate any new emission limitations, schedules of compliance, or other measures into its SIP. Thus, West Virginia did not ignore the results of its consideration of the four statutory factors. Rather, consistent with the EPA's new policy, the state properly used the URP to inform its final decision making as to the measures necessary to make reasonable progress in the second planning period.
As discussed in the RTC document at III.C.3, the EPA's change in policy is consistent with FCC v. Fox Television, 556 U.S 502 (2009). Under FCC v. Fox, an agency's change in policy is permissible if the agency acknowledges the change, believes it to be better, and “show[s] that there are good reasons for the new policy.” 556 U.S. 502, 515. In our proposal for this rulemaking, we stated our reasons for implementing this new policy. 90 FR 16478, April 18, 2025. In section I, What action is the EPA proposing?, of the rulemaking, we stated: “Based on our change in policy discussed in section V of this preamble, the EPA proposes that West Virginia's regional haze SIP meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for the regional haze second planning period.” The EPA more fully articulated the substance of the change in policy in section V, The EPA's Rationale for Proposing Approval, of that rulemaking. Id. at 16482-84. In sum, the EPA's proposal sufficiently justifies the change in policy under FCC v. Fox.
The decision in FCC v. Fox turned primarily on whether the FCC's change in policy would lead to the FCC “arbitrarily punishing parties without notice of the potential consequences of their action.” 556 U.S. at 517. As we explained in the proposal, the changed policy is prospective, which addresses the primary concern in FCC v. Fox. Additionally, the new policy “aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR, which is achieving `reasonable' progress, not maximal progress, toward Congress' natural visibility goal.” Id. at 16483. Furthermore, we note that the legislative history of CAA section 169A is consistent with our change in policy. The reconciliation report for the 1977 CAA amendments indicates that the term “maximum feasible progress” in section 169A was changed to “reasonable progress” in the final version of the legislation passed by both chambers. See Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 Public Law 95-95 (1977), H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, at 535.
As we explain in the RTC document in the response at III.B.2, the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56, and in particular 40 CFR 56.5(b), are not relevant to this action. 40 CFR 56.5(b) requires that a “responsible official in a Regional office shall seek concurrence from the appropriate EPA Headquarters office on any interpretation of the Act, or rule, regulation, or program directive when such interpretation may result in application of the act or rule, regulation, or program directive that is inconsistent with Agency policy.” (emphasis added). As we expressly indicated in the proposed WV SIP approval, the approval is consistent with the announced change in agency policy. Therefore, there is no obligation under the plain language of the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations for anyone in the region to seek concurrence from EPA Headquarters to take action consistent with EPA policy. The lack of relevance of these regulations to this action accounts for the lack of materials related to compliance with the Regional Consistency process in the docket for this rulemaking.
As discussed in the RTC document in the response at III.D.2, this action is “locally or regionally applicable” under CAA section 307(b)(1) because it applies only to a SIP submission from a single state, West Virginia. See Oklahoma v. EPA, 605 U.S. __, __-__ (2025) (slip op., at 8) (a SIP is “a state-specific plan” and “the CAA recognizes this limited scope in enumerating a SIP approval as a locally or regionally applicable action”); see also, Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n, 705 F.3d 453, 455 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (describing EPA action to approve a single SIP under CAA section 110 as the “[p]rototypical” locally or regionally applicable action). Whether our proposal to approve West Virginia's second planning period SIP “ `announc[es]' a `new' national policy” has no bearing on the applicability of EPA's final action. To determine whether an action is “nationally applicable” or “locally or regionally applicable,” “court[s] need look only to the face of the agency action, not its practical effects. . . .” EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 605 U.S. __ (2025) (slip op. at 12) (“[W]e determine an action's range of applicability by `look[ing] only to the face of the [action], rather than to its practical effects.' ”) (quoting Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n., 705 F. 3d at 456) and Oklahoma, 605 U.S. __, __-__ (2025) (slip op. at 9) (basis for EPA action is not relevant to determining its applicability); see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 926 F.3d 844, 849 (D.C. Cir. 2019) and RMS of Georgia, LLC v. EPA, 64 F.4th 1368, 1372 (11th Cir. 2023) (“our sister circuits have established a consensus that we should begin our analysis by analyzing the nature of the EPA's action, not the specifics of the petitioner's grievance”). Furthermore, the comments that claim that this action “amend[s] the nationally applicable RHR” are unsupported and incorrect. This action simply applies a new policy related to the URP in the context of the EPA's evaluation of West Virginia's regional haze SIP submission. Because this action applies a new policy to a SIP submission from West Virginia alone, it is locally or regionally, not nationally, applicable.
Second, comments that claim that the EPA “must” publish a finding that this action is “based on a determination of nationwide scope [or] effect” are also unsupported and incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized that “[b]ecause the `nationwide scope or effect' exception can apply only when `EPA so finds and publishes' that it does, EPA can decide whether the exception is even potentially relevant.” Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 605 U.S. __ (slip op. at 16), citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 2022). As the D.C. Circuit has also stated, the “EPA's decision whether to make and publish a finding of nationwide scope or effect is committed to the agency's discretion and thus is unreviewable.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th at 745; see also Texas v. EPA, 983 F.3d 826, 835 (5th Cir. 2020) (“when a locally applicable action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect, the EPA has discretion to select the venue for judicial review”).
The Administrator has not made and published a finding that this action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. Accordingly, any petition for review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate regional circuit.
Finally, as detailed in the RTC document in the responses at section IV, West Virginia met the requirements of the new policy. First, the RHR requires states to submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from the State, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), and the statute refers to “for a State the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area” CAA section 169A(b)(2). However, there is no specific statutory or regulatory requirement to identify the precise set of Class I areas that are affected by emissions from the State of West Virginia, and there is no requirement to establish a source contribution threshold in identifying those areas. In this case, WV DEP identified affected out-of-state Class I areas in several ways, as we explain in the RTC document at response section IV.A.5, none of which are above the 2028 URP.
The EPA believes WV DEP has reasonably documented the out-of-state Class I area contributions, and they are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment in any area that is above the URP.
In conclusion, as discussed in more detail in the responses at section IV of the RTC document, West Virginia took into consideration the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and determined that the specific sources selected for four-factor analyses were in compliance with already implemented emission control measures which continue to be successful, and that no additional SO 2 controls were necessary to make reasonable progress. Further, section 169A(b)(2) of the Act requires SIPs to include “such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress.” Congress explicitly stated its intent for states to only include mechanisms as may be necessary for Class I Federal areas to achieve reasonable progress. West Virginia concluded that it was not necessary to incorporate any new emission limitations, schedules of compliance, or other measures into its SIP for these sources. Thus, West Virginia did not ignore the results of its consideration of the four statutory factors; rather, as supported by the new policy, the State properly used the URP to inform its final decision making as to the measures necessary to make reasonable progress in the second planning period.
The full text of comments received is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at www.regulations.gov. The RTC document, which is also included in the docket associated with this action, provides detailed responses to all significant comments received. The RTC document is organized by topic. Therefore, if additional information is desired concerning how the EPA addressed a particular comment, the reader should refer to the appropriate section in the RTC document.

IV. Final Action
For the reasons set forth in the April 18, 2025 NPRM, the RTC document, and in this final rule, the EPA is approving West Virginia's August 12, 2022 SIP submittal as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second planning period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866:
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 5, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Amy Van Blarcom-Lackey,

Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart XX—West Virginia
2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry for “Regional Haze Plan from 2018-2028” at the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.2520
Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Additional explanation
* * * * * * *
West Virginia Regional Haze Plan (2018-2028) | State-wide | 8/12/2022 | 7/7/2025, 90 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS] |
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0983; FRL-11757-02-R5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Moderate Attainment Plan Elements for the Cleveland Area for the 2015 Ozone Standard

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the following portions of Ohio's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission for the Cleveland 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) Moderate nonattainment area: the base year emissions inventory, the reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration, the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program. EPA is approving these portions of the state's submission as a SIP revision pursuant to section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's regulations. EPA is also finding adequate and approving the 2023 motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) associated with the Cleveland Moderate ozone nonattainment RFP demonstration. EPA proposed to approve this action on January 3, 2025, and received no comments.

DATES:
This final rule is effective on August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0983. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either through https://www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen D'Agostino, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767, DAgostino.Kathleen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background Information
On January 3, 2025 (90 FR 283), EPA proposed to approve the following portions of Ohio's December 21, 2022, attainment plan submission: the 2017 base year emissions inventory, the RFP demonstration, the motor vehicle I/M program, and the NNSR program. EPA also initiated the adequacy process for the 2023 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Cleveland area included in this SIP submission. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on February 3, 2025. EPA received no comments on the proposal.

II. Final Action
EPA is approving revisions to Ohio's SIP pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations promulgated thereto, because Ohio's December 21, 2022, attainment plan submission satisfies the base year emissions inventory, RFP demonstration, I/M, and NNSR requirements of the CAA for the Cleveland area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA is also finding adequate and approving the 2023 motor vehicle emissions budgets associated with the Cleveland Moderate ozone nonattainment RFP demonstration.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 5, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 23, 2025.
Anne Vogel,

Regional Administrator, Region 5.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 52.1870, the table in paragraph (e) is amended under “Summary of Criteria Pollutant Attainment Plans” by revising the entry for “Ozone (8-Hour, 2015)” with an Applicable geographical or non-attainment area of Cleveland to read as follows:
§ 52.1870
Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED OHIO NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Title | Applicable geographical or non-attainment area | State date | EPA approval | Comments
* * * * * * *
Summary of Criteria Pollutant Attainment Plans
* * * * * * *
Ozone (8-Hour, 2015) | Cleveland | 12/21/2022 | 7/7/2025, 90 FR [insert Federal Register page where the document begins] | EPA is approving only the 2017 base year emissions inventory, the reasonable further progress demonstration including associated 2023 motor vehicle emissions budgets, I/M, and nonattainment new source review.
* * * * * * *
* * * * *
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0465; FRL-12681-02-R6]
Air Plan Approval; Louisiana; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the State of Louisiana demonstrating that the State satisfies the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the “good neighbor” provision of the CAA, for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each State's implementation plan to include adequate provisions prohibiting the interstate transport of air pollution in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other State.

DATES:
This rule is effective on August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0465. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nevine Salem, EPA Region 6 Office, Ozone and Infrastructure SIP Section, 214-665-7222, salem.nevine@epa.gov. Please call or email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

I. Background
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a State's SIP to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emission activity in the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any other State. EPA has long interpreted this language to enact a “functional prohibition” on certain emission from upwind states, necessitating the EPA's independent assessment whether those emissions will occur or have been adequately controlled in the State where they originate. ^1 The EPA often refers to these requirements as Prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS) and Prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS).
^1 See Genon Rema LLC v. EPA, 722 F. 3d 513, 520-24 (3d Cir. 2013); Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F. 2d 1032, 1045-47 (D.C. Cir. 2001); see also 71 FR 25328, 25335 (April 28, 2006) (explaining that the SIP/FIP process under section 110 and the petitioning process for direct Federal regulation under section 126 provide independent means of effectuating the same “functional prohibition” found CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
On June 4, 2013, the State of Louisiana submitted to the EPA a SIP revision to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2), including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. A copy of the submittal is in the docket for this action. Other portions of this SIP revision were addressed in 81 FR 68322 (October 4, 2016).
The EPA proposed to approve Prong 1 and Prong 2 portions of the infrastructure SIP submission submitted by the State of Louisiana on June 4, 2013, addressing interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. The details of the SIP revision and rationale for the EPA's action is explained in the April 9, 2025 (90 FR 15213), notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). ^2
^2 Additional details regarding EPA's review of updated available data, weight of evidence analysis approach and evaluation are provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) available in the docket supporting this final action.
The EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the April 9, 2025, proposed rulemaking. The comment period ended on May 9, 2025. We received three relevant comments in favor/support of our proposed action, one from the Louisiana Public Service Commission, one from an anonymous commentor, and one from a citizen. EPA appreciates the comments. See section II of this preamble for a brief discussion of the comments. A full copy of the comments is included in the docket for this rule.

II. Response to Comments
Comment: The Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) submitted a comment letter on May 9, 2025, to request the EPA to consider finalizing the NPRM. The LPSC stated that the rulemaking supports cooperative federalism, preserves the LPSC's authority to regulate retail electric rates and services, and avoids the reliability and cost challenges associated with Federal mandates.
Response: We appreciate the LPSC's comments supporting the EPA's rulemaking.
Comment: An anonymous public comment was received on April 14, 2025, that supports the EPA's NPRM. The commentor recognized the environmental and health impacts associated with SO 2 emissions and encouraged the EPA to proceed with this regulation.
Response: EPA appreciates the comments of support. EPA is committed to successful implementation of CAA required NAAQS standards.
Comment: A citizen submitted a comment on April 16, 2025, to express an appreciation of the benefits that America receives from the CAA and its regulatory requirements. The citizen expressed concerns with actions that would reduce regulations such as the “Good Neighbor Plan”. The commentor stated that the elimination of the Good Neighbor plan would result in a deterioration in air quality and citizens health.
Response: EPA acknowledges the citizen's concerns, we are committed to protecting the air quality, environment and human health through implementation of various regulations and programs, and it should be noted that this action was taken under the “Good Neighbor Plan.”

III. Final Action
The EPA is approving the portions of the Louisiana's June 4, 2013, SIP that address two of the interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, prong 1 and prong 2, as these portions meet the requirements in CAA section 110 and specifically in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA determines that the Louisiana SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that the air emissions in the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in any other state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Act.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because State Implementation Plan approvals under the CAA are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 5, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Interstate transport of pollution, Sulfur oxide.
Dated: June 26, 2025.
Walter Mason

Regional Administrator, Region 6.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart T-Louisiana
2. In § 52.970(e), the second table titled “EPA Approved Louisiana Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures” is amended by adding the entry “Interstate Transport for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS (contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance)” at the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.970
Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA Approved Louisiana Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic or nonattainment area | State submittal date/effective date | EPA approval date | Explanation
* * * * * * *
Interstate transport for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS (contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance) | Statewide | 06/04/2013 | 07/07/2025, 90 FR [INSERT FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS] | Adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in any other State.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2024-0049; FRL-12620-02-R4]
Air Plan Approval; Florida; Revisions to Stationary Sources—Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule Provisions

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on August 15, 2023. The revision removes certain Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)-related definitions, and CAIR-related portions of certain definitions, in the Stationary Sources—General Requirements chapter of the Florida SIP because they have become obsolete. EPA is approving these changes pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES:
This rule is effective August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2024-0049. All documents in the docket are listed on the regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Steven Scofield, Multi-Air Pollutant Coordination Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9034. Mr. Scofield can also be reached via electronic mail at scofield.steve@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by FDEP on August 15, 2023, seeking to remove certain CAIR-related definitions, and CAIR-related portions of certain definitions, from Chapter 62-210, Stationary Sources—General Requirements, of the Florida SIP. ^1 Specifically, this final action addresses definitional changes adopted by the State, effective July 3, 2018, to SIP-approved Rule 62-210.200, Definitions. These definitions are referenced throughout Chapter 62-210 and in other parts of the SIP. Approval of these changes improves consistency with Federal and State regulations.
^1 The August 15, 2023, submittal contains revisions to other Florida SIP-approved rules that are not addressed in this action. EPA will act on those rule changes in separate rulemakings.
The following definitions are being removed from the SIP: 62-210.200(52) “CAIR”; 62-210.200(53) “CAIR NO X Allowance”; 62-210.200(54) “CAIR NO X Annual Trading Program”; 62-210.200(55) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Allowance”; 62-210.200(56) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program”; 62-210.200(57) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Unit”; 62-210.200(58) “CAIR NO X Unit”; 62-210.200(59) “CAIR Part or CAIR Unit”; 62-210.200(60) “CAIR Program”; 62-210.200(61) “CAIR SO 2 Allowance”; 62-210.200(62) “CAIR SO 2 Trading Program”; 62-210.200(63) “CAIR SO 2 Unit”; and 62-210.200(64) “CAIR Source”; 62-210.200(65). This action also removes the CAIR-related portions of 62-210.200(91) “Commence Operation” (removing paragraph (b)) and 62-210.200(115) “Designated Representative” (removing paragraph (b) and moving paragraph (c) to paragraph (b)).
Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 28, 2025 (90 FR 14059), EPA proposed to approve these changes because CAIR is no longer operative; EPA previously removed Florida's CAIR rule from the SIP, ^2 and the changes therefore would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act. ^3 The removal of other CAIR-related definitions was also requested as part of this August 15, 2023, SIP submission; however, EPA will address these changes in a separate rulemaking. EPA's rationale for approving the removal or modification of the above definitions is described in the March 28, 2025, NPRM and further discussed in Section II, below. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before April 28, 2025. EPA received four comments on the NPRM. All four comments are available in the docket for this action.
^2 A summary and timeline of the federal and State alterations to the CAIR regulations can be found in Appendix A of Florida's August 15, 2023, SIP submission, starting on page 1147. The submission can be found in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2024-0049 at regulations.gov . EPA removed Florida's former CAIR rule from the SIP on October 3, 2023 (88 FR 67963).
^3 See CAA section 110(l) which prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA Section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

II. Response to Comments
EPA has summarized and responded to the four comments below.
Comment 1: Two of the commenters recommend that EPA disapprove the proposed revisions to the Florida SIP. Among other things, the commenters mention land use development and its impacts. One commenter adds that strict air quality standards and penalties are needed, and one commenter adds that CAIR should be reinstated.
Response 1: EPA disagrees that the Agency should disapprove the SIP revision. EPA is acting on a SIP revision submitted pursuant to the CAA that merely removes unnecessary and obsolete CAIR-related definitions, and CAIR-related portions of certain definitions, from the SIP. The SIP revision is unrelated to land use development and has no impact on air quality. As discussed in the NPRM, in response to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's remand of CAIR, EPA published the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address the good neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS, and the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). Through subsequent litigation over CSAPR, EPA continued to implement CAIR until December 31, 2014. CSAPR became effective on January 1, 2015. EPA determined that CSAPR does not apply to Florida after demonstrating that Florida does not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to the covered NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504, 74506 (October 26, 2016). Because CSAPR replaced CAIR and EPA previously determined that CSAPR does not apply to Florida, neither of these rules have any applicability in Florida today, and CAIR cannot be reinstated in Florida. EPA removed Florida's former CAIR rule—Rule 62-296.470, Implementation of Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule —from the SIP on October 3, 2023. See 88 FR 67963.
Comment 2: The third commenter supports approval of Florida's SIP revision. The commenter suggests that EPA provide a “clear side-by-side list showing which terms are being removed and what's staying the same” and explain if these changes affect how Florida monitors or controls air pollution.
Response 2: Regarding the suggestion for a side-by-side list, it is unclear what the commenter would find helpful. The August 25, 2023, SIP submission identifies what is in the SIP for each rule selected for modification, what changes are requested, and what the SIP would look like if each change is adopted. The NPRM and this notice of final rulemaking also provide a list of each removed and revised definition along with the rule numbers. Except for these removed and revised definitions, the SIP will remain the same.
Regarding an explanation about impacts on the monitoring and control of air pollution, there is no impact because no air quality standards, emission standards, or any other SIP requirements are being relaxed or removed in this action. As discussed above and in the NPRM, Florida's CAIR trading program, as well as the corresponding EPA program, have not been implemented since 2014, and the rules and regulations related to these programs have already been removed or replaced. Therefore, EPA is removing the CAIR-related definitions, and CAIR-related portions of certain definitions, because they are unnecessary and obsolete.
Comment 3: The fourth commenter suggests that EPA should require a supplemental environmental justice analysis; identify how its action complies with the CAA “good neighbor” obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); establish a periodic SIP review process with Florida to remove obsolete rule text within five years of rule changes; provide community outreach with Florida for SIP revisions removing major regulatory programs; archive references to CAIR-related programs and definitions in EPA's docket system; conduct an impact analysis to ensure the action does not create unintended gaps in Florida's SIP that could weaken enforcement; verify that the action does not conflict with the 2015 ozone and 2020 PM 2.5 NAAQS; confirm that the action does not reduce any public health protections; confirm whether any consultation with Tribal governments was conducted or deemed unnecessary under Executive Order 13175; and acknowledge that “strong SIP clarity supports broader national climate justice goals by ensuring foundational air quality protections remain enforceable.”
Response 3: EPA disagrees with the comment that EPA should require an environmental justice analysis to ensure that this action does not unintentionally impact pollution control standards for vulnerable communities. As discussed above and in the NPRM, the aforementioned definitions and portions of definitions subject to this action no longer function in Florida's SIP because CAIR is no longer operative, and EPA previously removed Florida's CAIR rule from the SIP. No air quality standards, emission standards, or any other SIP requirements are being relaxed or removed in this action. Furthermore, the CAA does not require consideration of environmental justice in SIP actions, and Executive Order 14148—“Initial Rescission of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” (90 FR 8237; January 28, 2025) revoked past Executive Orders related to environmental justice.
Regarding the comments that EPA should document and publish how this action complies with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prevent interstate air pollution; EPA should verify that this action does not conflict with obligations under the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS; and EPA should include a statement that this action does not reduce public health protections, this action has no impact on air quality for the reasons discussed above, and therefore, has no impact on interstate air pollution, the NAAQS, or public health.
Regarding the comments that Florida and EPA should establish a periodic SIP review process, and that EPA should acknowledge that SIP clarity supports national climate justice goals by ensuring foundational air quality protections remain enforceable, these comments are beyond the scope of this action. This action is solely focused on the individual definitional changes in Florida's August 15, 2023, SIP revision.
Regarding public engagement, the CAA and its implementing regulations require states to provide public notice, the opportunity to submit written comments, and the opportunity to request a public hearing on each SIP revision. See CAA section 110(a)(2); 40 CFR 51.102; Appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. Florida's SIP revision met these requirements. Furthermore, EPA provided public notice and the opportunity for comment on this action approving the revision.
Regarding recordkeeping and transparency, the rulemaking docket for this action will remain available at www.regulations.gov. Moreover, EPA provides regular updates to the public on its incorporation by reference of state and local regulations approved into SIPs and maintains a public compilation of the SIP, including a summary of citations for past actions. ^4
^4 Florida's SIP is available at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/approved-air-quality-implementation-plans-region-4. Specific regulatory provisions incorporated into Florida's SIP are available at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/epa-approved-statutes-and-regulations-florida-sip.
Regarding an analysis of potential issues with enforceability of the SIP as a result of removing the aforementioned definitions and portions of definitions, there is no impact on enforceability because, as stated in the NPRM and this notice, the definitions and portions of definitions subject to this action no longer function in Florida's SIP because CAIR is no longer operative, and EPA previously removed Florida's CAIR rule from the SIP.
Regarding tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175, as noted in the NPRM, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and in those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000).

III. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Section I of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Florida Rule 62-210.200, Definitions, state-effective on October 23, 2013 with the exception of the following: 62-210.200(52) “CAIR”; 62-210.200(53) “CAIR NO X Allowance”; 62-210.200(54) “CAIR NO X Annual Trading Program”; 62-210.200(55) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Allowance”; 62-210.200(56) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program”; 62-210.200(57) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Unit”; 62-210.200(58) “CAIR NO X Unit”; 62-210.200(59) “CAIR Part” or “CAIR Permit”; 62-210.200(60) “CAIR Program”; 62-210.200(61) “CAIR SO 2 Allowance”; 62-210.200(62) “CAIR SO 2 Trading Program”; 62-210.200(63) “CAIR SO 2 Unit”; 62-210.200(64) “CAIR Source”; 62-210.200(65) “CAIR Unit”; 62-210.200(91) “Commence Operation”; and 62-210.200(115) “Designated Representative”. ^5 EPA is also incorporating by reference the modified definitions of 62-210.200(79) “Commence Operation” and 62-210.200(103) “Designated Representative,” which became state-effective on July 3, 2018. ^6 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. ^7
^5 These CAIR-related definitions were removed from the state-effective version of Rule 62-210.200 on July 3, 2018. EPA is also not incorporating by reference the definitions of “animal crematory”; “biological waste”; “biological waste incinerator”; “biomedical waste”; “capture efficiency”; “cast polymer operation”; “human crematory”; “major source of air pollution,” “major source,” or “title V source”; “printed interior panels”; “unit-specific applicable requirement”; and “waste-to-energy facility” as identified in the regulatory table entry for Rule 62-210.200 at 40 CFR 52.520(c). As finalized, the table entry for Rule 62-210.200 at 40 CFR 52.520(c) will retain these exclusions and retain the note that “The ethanol production facility exclusion within the definition of “major stationary source” at 62-210.200 does not apply to 62-212.500.”
^6 These definitions are numbered 62-210.200(91) and 62-210.200(115), respectively, in the current SIP. As finalized, the SIP will contain two definitions numbered 62-210.200(79) and two definitions numbered 62-210.200(103). The August 15, 2023, submittal requests that EPA remove all definition numbers from 62-210.200 in the SIP, retaining the alphabetical order of the definitions. EPA will act on that change in a separate rulemaking.
^7 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the August 15, 2023, Florida SIP revision that removes Rules 62-210.200(52) “CAIR”; 62-210.200(53) “CAIR NO X Allowance”; 62-210.200(54) “CAIR NO X Annual Trading Program”; 62-210.200(55) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Allowance”; 62-210.200(56) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program”; 62-210.200(57) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Unit”; 62-210.200(58) “CAIR NO X Unit”; 62-210.200(59) “CAIR Part” or “CAIR Permit”; 62-210.200(60) “CAIR Program”; 62-210.200(61) “CAIR SO 2 Allowance”; 62-210.200(62) “CAIR SO 2 Trading Program”; 62-210.200(63) “CAIR SO 2 Unit”; 62-210.200(64) “CAIR Source”; and 62-210.200(65) “CAIR Unit”; and modifies Rules 62-210.200(91) “Commence Operation” and 62-210.200(115) “Designated Representative.”

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 5, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 25, 2025.
Kevin McOmber,

Regional Administrator, Region 4.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart K—Florida
2. In § 52.520(c), amend the table by revising the entry for “62-210.200.”
The amendment reads as follows:
§ 52.520
Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Florida Laws and Regulations
State citation (section) | Title/subject | State effective date | EPA approval date | Explanation
* * * * * * *
Chapter 62-210 Stationary Sources—General Requirements
62-210.200 | Definitions | 10/23/2013 | July 7, 2025, 90 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins] | The ethanol production facility exclusion within the definition of “major stationary source” at 62-210.200 does not apply to 62-212.500. Except the following definitions: “animal crematory”; “biological waste”; “biological waste incinerator”; “biomedical waste”; “capture efficiency”; “cast polymer operation”; “human crematory”; “major source of air pollution,” “major source,” or “title V source”; “printed interior panels”; “unit-specific applicable requirement”; “waste-to-energy facility”; “CAIR”; “CAIR NO X Allowance”; “CAIR NO X Annual Trading Program”; “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Allowance”; “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program”; “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Unit”; “CAIR NO X Unit”; “CAIR Part” or “CAIR Permit”; “CAIR Program”; “CAIR SO 2 Allowance”; “CAIR SO 2 Trading Program”; “CAIR SO 2 Unit”; “CAIR Source”; and “CAIR Unit”; and except for “Commence Operation” and “Designated Representative” approved on July 7, 2025, state effective 7/3/2018.
* * * * * * *
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[EPA-R06-OAR-2024-0232; FRL-12425-02-R6]
Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Oklahoma; Control of Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the CAA section 111(d) state plan submitted by the State of Oklahoma for sources subject to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Emission Guidelines (EG). The Oklahoma MSW landfills plan was submitted to fulfill the state's obligations under CAA section 111(d) to implement and enforce the requirements under the MSW Landfills EG. The EPA is approving the state plan and amending the agency regulations in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES:
This rule is effective on August 6, 2025. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2024-0232. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Gesualdo, EPA Region 6 Office, Air and Radiation Division—State Planning and Implementation Branch, 214-665-6530, gesualdo.matthew@epa.gov. Please call or email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

I. Background
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our December 18, 2024, proposal (89 FR 102847) and accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD). In that document, we proposed to approve the Oklahoma MSW landfills plan submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in accordance with the requirements of section 111(d) of the CAA and to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart LL, to codify EPA's approval. We proposed to find that the Oklahoma MSW landfills plan, submitted by ODEQ on April 30, 2024, is at least as protective as the Federal requirements provided under the MSW landfills EG, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.

II. Response to Comments
We received one comment regarding our proposal. The comment and response to the comment are provided below. The EPA is finalizing as proposed; no changes have been made as a result of the comment received.
Comment: Cleaning up the environment is a must in any state. With the climate constantly changing this is something that should probably happened a long time ago. Cleaning up the landfills and keeping it to code will show a significant difference in the environment. It is a duty of ours to keep this place clean. Potentially by ignoring this you are putting the public's health at risk. This should be done in a timely manner.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's statements, which provide general support for regulations that reduce landfill emissions and help to protect human health and the environment.

III. Impact on Areas of Indian Country
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the State of Oklahoma requested approval under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) (“SAFETEA”), to administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were previously approved by the EPA outside of Indian country. The State's request excluded certain areas of Indian country further described below.
The EPA has approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to administer all of the States's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs in the requested areas of Indian country. As requested by Oklahoma, EPA's approval under SAFETEA does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); (2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or citizen of the Tribe (collectively “excluded Indian country lands”).
The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the extent the EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request. The approval also provided that future revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).
As explained above, the EPA is approving the CAA section 111(d) state plan submitted by the State of Oklahoma for sources subject to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Emission Guidelines (EG). The plan will apply statewide in Oklahoma, including to all areas of Indian country in the State of Oklahoma other than the excluded Indian country lands as described above, and will cover 57 sources located on privately-owned lands within reservation boundaries.

IV. Final Action
In this final action, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart LL, to reflect approval of the Oklahoma MSW landfills plan from ODEQ, received on April 30, 2024, in accordance with section 111(d) of the CAA.

V. Incorporation by Reference
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes the incorporation by reference of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) Chapter 100, Subchapter 47, adopted February 18, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is part of the CAA section 111(d) Plan applicable to existing MSW landfills subject to the MSW Landfills Emission Guidelines, at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, within ODEQ's jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma. The regulatory provisions of ODEQ Chapter 100, Subchapter 47 incorporate the MSW Landfills Emissions Guidelines promulgated by the EPA at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and establish emission standards and compliance times for the control of municipal solid waste landfills, as defined in subpart Cf, that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on or before July 17, 2014. The EPA has made and will continue to make ODEQ Chapter 100, Subchapter 47, generally available at the EPA Region 6 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). They are also available at: https:// www.regulations.gov. This incorporation by reference has been approved by the Office of the Federal Register and the state plan is federally enforceable under the CAA as of the effective date of this final rulemaking.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA section 111(d)/129 submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus, in reviewing CAA section 111(d)/129 state plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason:

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) because it does not contain any information collection activities.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
This action is certified to not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This action will approve a state plan pursuant to CAA section 111(d) and will therefore have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This final action will apply to certain areas of Indian country throughout Oklahoma as discussed in the preamble, and therefore has tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments because no actions will be required of tribal governments. This action will also not preempt tribal law as no Oklahoma tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA and thus does not have applicable or related tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (December 7, 2023), the EPA offered consultation (by letter dated December 18, 2024) on our proposed rulemaking to tribal governments that may be affected by this action. No tribes accepted EPA's offer for consultation, and as a result, a consultation did not occur.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definitions of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state program.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution and Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: June 26, 2025.
Walter Mason,

Regional Administrator, Region 6.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 62 as follows:

PART 62—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart LL—Oklahoma
2. Amend § 62.9100 by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
§ 62.9100
Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Control of landfill gas emissions from existing municipal solid waste landfills, submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality on April 30, 2024.
* * * * *
3. Revise § 62.9160 to read as follows.
§ 62.9160
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.
(a) Identification of plan. Control of air emissions from existing municipal solid waste landfills, as adopted by the State of Oklahoma on February 18, 2022, effective September 15, 2022, and submitted on April 30, 2024, by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) Air Quality Division Director in a letter dated April 29, 2024. The plan includes the regulatory provisions cited in paragraph (d) of this section, which EPA incorporates by reference.
(b) Identification of sources. The plan, as adopted by the State of Oklahoma on February 18, 2022, effective September 15, 2022, and submitted on April 30, 2024, applies to existing municipal solid waste landfills subject to the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Emission Guidelines, at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, within its jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma.
(c) Effective Date. The effective date of the plan is August 6, 2025.
(d) Incorporation by reference. The material listed in this paragraph (d) is incorporated by reference in this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the EPA and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the EPA Region 6 office at 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270; phone 214-665-2200. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov. The material may be obtained from the State of Oklahoma, Secretary of State, Office of Administrative Rules, 421 NW 13th St. Suite 210, Oklahoma City, OK 73103, oar@sos.ok.gov, https://www.rules.ok.gov/home.
(1) Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) Title 252. Department of Environmental Quality, Chapter 100. Air Pollution Control, Subchapter 47. Control of Emissions from Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, effective September 15, 2022.
(2) [Reserved]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0411; FRL-12015-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AW46
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Partial Waiver of the 2024 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
EPA is partially waiving the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and revising the associated percentage standard under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program due to a shortfall in cellulosic biofuel production. This action also makes a minor revision to the biogas provisions of the RFS program.

DATES:
This rule is effective on September 5, 2025. The incorporation by reference of certain other material listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0411. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material is not available on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For questions regarding this action, contact Dallas Burkholder, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4776; email address: RFS-Rulemakings@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels ( e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) and renewable fuels ( e.g., ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and biogas). Potentially affected categories include:
Category | NAICS ^a code | Examples of potentially affected entities
Industry | 211130 | Natural gas liquids extraction and fractionation.
Industry | 221210 | Natural gas production and distribution.
Industry | 324110 | Petroleum refineries (including importers).
Industry | 325120 | Biogases, industrial ( i.e., compressed, liquified, solid), manufacturing.
Industry | 325193 | Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry | 325199 | Other basic organic chemical manufacturing.
Industry | 424690 | Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers.
Industry | 424710 | Petroleum bulk stations and terminals.
Industry | 424720 | Petroleum and petroleum products wholesalers.
Industry | 457210 | Fuel dealers.
Industry | 562212 | Landfills.
^a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your entity would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations
Throughout this document the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
BBD biomass-based diesel
CAA Clean Air Act
CG conventional gasoline
CNG compressed natural gas
CWC cellulosic waiver credit
LNG liquified natural gas
RBOB reformulated gasoline before oxygenate blending
RFG reformulated gasoline
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RIN Renewable Identification Number
RNG renewable natural gas
RVO Renewable Volume Obligation

Outline of This Preamble
I. Executive Summary
II. Statutory Background
A. The RFS Program and the Set Authority
B. Cellulosic Waiver Authority
III. Partial Waiver of the 2024 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement
A. Implementation of the Cellulosic Waiver Authority
B. Economic Impact Analysis
C. Calculation of 2024 Cellulosic Biofuel Percentage Standard
IV. Change to Calculation of Cellulosic Waiver Credit Price
V. Measurement of Renewable CNG/LNG Using Documentation
VI. Severability
VII. Judicial Review
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
IX. Statutory Authority

I. Executive Summary
On July 12, 2023, EPA promulgated a rule establishing the RFS volume requirements and percentage standards for 2023-2025 (the “Set 1 Rule”). ^1 As part of that rulemaking, EPA projected that 1.09 billion cellulosic Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) would be generated in 2024 and used that volume to establish the 2024 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard of 0.63 percent. ^2 On December 12, 2024, EPA proposed a rule to, among other things, partially waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement under the RFS program and revise the associated 2024 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard due to a projected shortfall in cellulosic biofuel production in 2024. ^3 In this action, EPA is finalizing the proposed partial waiver of the 2024 cellulosic biofuel requirement and one RFS regulatory amendment. EPA proposed several additional amendments to other RFS provisions, a majority of which are not being finalized here but may instead be addressed in a later action.
^1 88 FR 44468 (July 12, 2023).
^2 40 CFR 80.1405(a).
^3 89 FR 100442 (December 12, 2024).
Based on cellulosic (D3/D7) RIN generation data for 2024, we now project that only 1.01 billion cellulosic RINs were generated in 2024, a shortfall of 0.08 billion RINs from the 1.09 billion RINs projected in the Set 1 Rule. Due to this shortfall and reasons further explained in Sections II and III, we are partially waiving the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement to 1.01 billion RINs (the projected cellulosic RIN generation in 2024) using the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211(o)(7)(D) “cellulosic waiver authority.” In the proposal, we proposed to utilize the CAA general waiver authority to partially waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and sought comment on the use of the CAA cellulosic waiver authority. After further consideration and in response to comments received, we have decided to partially waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement using the CAA cellulosic waiver authority. The cellulosic waiver authority is specific to the cellulosic biofuel standard and its use is mandatory, as described further in Section II.B. Use of the cellulosic waiver authority also triggers the availability of cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs) for 2024 as an additional compliance flexibility for obligated parties. As discussed further in the response to comments (RTC) document, ^4 we are not reducing the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume using the general waiver authority.
^4 “Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program Partial Waiver of 2024 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement: Response to Comments Document,” EPA-420-R-25-008, June 2025.
The supply of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in 2024 exceeded the required volumes by a significant margin, despite the shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. Given the surplus of 2024 BBD (D4) and advanced (D5) RINs, we are not reducing the volumes for any of the other categories of renewable fuel ( i.e., biomass-based diesel (BBD), advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel). We are also not making any changes to any of the 2025 RFS standards, which were also finalized in the Set 1 Rule. ^5
^5 EPA is not reopening the 2025 RFS volumes and standards in this proceeding, nor are we reopening any of the 2024 RFS volumes and standards besides the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume and standard.
Finally, we are also replacing the source of data for the wholesale price of gasoline that is used to calculate the price of cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs), as discussed in Section IV, as well as making a minor revision to the biogas provisions of the RFS program, as discussed in Section V.

II. Statutory Background

A. The RFS Program and the Set Authority
CAA section 211(o)(2)(B) establishes the framework by which EPA is to establish annual, nationally applicable minimum volume requirements for each of the four categories of renewable fuel that make up the RFS program: cellulosic biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuel. CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(i) provided specific applicable volumes for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuel for each year from 2010 to 2022 and specific applicable volumes for BBD for each year from 2010 to 2012.
For the years beyond those expressly enumerated ( i.e., after 2022 for all categories), CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) provides that applicable volumes are set by EPA in coordination with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Energy (DOE), based on a review of the implementation of the RFS program to date, and that EPA must analyze specific factors ( e.g., the impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, energy security, the infrastructure of the United States, and job creation). EPA calls this statutory authority to set volumes after 2022 its “set authority.” CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) additionally provides that under the set authority, EPA shall promulgate applicable volumes no later than 14 months prior to the start of the relevant year. ^6
^6 “The Administrator shall promulgate rules establishing the applicable volumes under this clause no later than 14 months before the first year for which such applicable volume will apply.” CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii).
This action concerns the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement that was established in the Set 1 Rule, EPA's first RFS rule promulgated under the set authority. In the Set 1 Rule, EPA established the volume requirements for 2023-2025 using the set authority and acknowledged that certain waivers may be available to adjust post-2022 volume requirements if the requisite statutory conditions are met. ^7
^7 88 FR 44479 (July 12, 2023) (“While we are establishing applicable volume requirements in this action for future years that are achievable and appropriate based on our consideration of the statutory factors, we retain our legal authority to waive volumes in the future under the waiver authorities should circumstances so warrant.”).

B. Cellulosic Waiver Authority
The cellulosic waiver authority at CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) provides that “[f]or any calendar year for which the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume established under [CAA section 211(o)](2)(B)], as determined by the Administrator based on the estimate provided under paragraph (3)(A),” EPA “shall reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel required under paragraph (2)(B) to the projected volume available during that calendar year” and that this reduction shall be made “not later than November 30 of the preceding calendar year.” For those years in which EPA “makes such a reduction,” the statute further provides that EPA may also “reduce the applicable volume of renewable fuel and advanced biofuels requirement . . . by the same or a lesser volume.” As such, even when EPA exercises its cellulosic waiver authority, the determination of whether to correspondingly reduce the total renewable fuel or advanced biofuel requirements is discretionary. As recognized by EPA in the Set 1 Rule, there may be situations in which the CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) cellulosic waiver authority is available to waive cellulosic biofuel volume requirements after 2022. ^8
^8 Section 2.2, “Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2023-25 and Other Changes, Response to Comments,” EPA-420-R-23-014, June 2023 (“Set 1 Rule RTC”).
When EPA determines that the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production for a given year will be less than the annual applicable volume established under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B), EPA is then required to reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel for that calendar year. Pursuant to this provision, EPA set the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement lower than the CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) statutory volumes enumerated by Congress for each year from 2010-2022. EPA was challenged regarding its interpretation of this statutory provision, leading the D.C. Circuit to evaluate various aspects of EPA's implementation of its cellulosic waiver authority. ^9 In 2013 in API, the court held that EPA must take a “neutral aim at accuracy” in determining the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel available. ^{10} In API and Alon Refining Krotz Springs, Inc. v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's decision to use the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production to inform EPA's projection, without requiring “slavish adherence by EPA to the EIA estimate,” and had Congress so intended “it could have skipped the EPA `determination' altogether.” ^{11} In Sinclair Wyoming Refining Co. LLC, et al. v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's reading of the statutory phrase “projected volume available” to exclude carryover RINs. ^{12}
^9 See, e.g., American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“ API” ) (interpreting the “projected volume available” and indicating that “the most natural reading of the provision is to call for a projection that aims at accuracy, not at deliberately indulging a greater risk of overshooting than undershooting” in projecting the available cellulosic biofuel volume); Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA, 864 F.3d 691, 730 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (“ ACE” ) (determining EPA's use of the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce advanced and total renewable fuel was reasonable); Sinclair Wyoming Refining Co. LLC, et al. v. EPA, 101 F.4th 871, 883 (2024) (“ Sinclair” ) (rejecting biofuels producers' challenge that EPA must include carryover cellulosic RINs in its determination of “projected volume available during that calendar year”).
^{10} API, 706 F.3d at 476.
^{11} API, 607 F.3d at 478. See also Alon Refining Krotz Springs, Inc. v. EPA, 396 F.3d 628, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
^{12} Sinclair, 101 F.4th at 883-86.
In the proposal, EPA sought comment on whether the cellulosic waiver authority is available to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume in 2024. EPA received comments suggesting that the cellulosic waiver authority remains available to EPA and that waiving the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement under this waiver authority would be appropriate. EPA also received comments suggesting that the cellulosic waiver authority should not or could not be used in these circumstances or that the cellulosic waiver authority is not available at all after 2022. We address some of these comments in this preamble and address others more fully in the RTC document.
Several commenters suggested that cellulosic waiver authority is not available to EPA to reduce volumes after 2022. These commenters pointed to CAA section 211(o)(7)(D), which directs EPA to determine if there is a projected cellulosic biofuel production shortfall based on an estimate provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) pursuant to CAA section 211(o)(3)(A). That provision, however, was in effect only through 2021. ^{13} As noted above, EPA has in the past utilized the EIA estimate in conjunction with other data to arrive at an estimated projection of cellulosic biofuel production. The EIA estimate has never included CNG/LNG in its projection of cellulosic biofuel production, even though over 95 percent of the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement has been met with CNG/LNG. The D.C. Circuit has upheld EPA's use of other information to inform our production estimate, particularly for CNG/LNG production that accounts for the vast majority of cellulosic biofuel. ^{14}
^{13} CAA section 211(o)(3)(A) provides: “Not later than October 31 of each of calendar years 2005 through 2021, the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall provide to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency an estimate, with respect to the following calendar year, of the volumes of transportation fuel, biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic biofuel projected to be sold or introduced into commerce in the United States.”
^{14} See, e.g., ACE, 864 F.3d at 728-30 (upholding EPA's cellulosic biofuel projection methodology including, among other things. EPA's reliance on biofuel producers' self-reported production startup dates, use of production ranges, and a percentile approach).
In contrast, other statutory references indicate the continuing availability of the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the volumes EPA sets under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B). First, CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) indicates that EPA is to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume “for any year for which the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel is less than the applicable volume.” The “any year” language is expansive and is not limited by any other language in the provision, indicating that Congress intended for it to be available for all years of the RFS program. Second, CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) indicates that EPA shall determine cellulosic volumes “under the assumption that the Administrator will not need to issue a waiver for such years under paragraph (7)(D).” While this language primarily provides guidance to EPA on how to determine volumes under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), it also contemplates the continued existence of the CAA 211(o)(7)(D) cellulosic waiver authority in the set years. This is also consistent with the reference in CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) directing EPA to compare the projected production of cellulosic biofuel to the cellulosic biofuel volume “required under paragraph (2)(B).” This reference to paragraph (2)(B) encompasses all years of the RFS program: the compliance years up to 2022 during which EPA applied the CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(i) statutory tables enumerating applicable volumes, and the years from 2023 forward during which EPA uses its CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) set authority to determine or set volumes applying statutory factors. We conclude that the best reading of the statute is that, when read together, the various statutory references in CAA section 211(o) indicate that Congress intended the cellulosic waiver authority to remain available to EPA for years beyond the statutory tables ( i.e., 2023 and beyond). For all these reasons, EPA believes this interpretation of CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)—that the cellulosic waiver authority is available to use in years after 2022—is the best reading of the statute given the text, structure of the RFS program, and the context of how EPA implements the RFS program year to year. ^{15} Moreover, such an interpretation is consistent with EPA's history of implementing the cellulosic waiver authority in years where cellulosic biofuel production falls short of the minimum required volume; this is simply the first instance EPA is implementing a partial cellulosic waiver in the years where EPA establishes volumes utilizing its set authority. ^{16}
^{15} See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024) (“ Loper Bright” ) (in overruling Chevron deference, the Court observed that it “makes no sense to speak of a `permissible' interpretation [of a statute] that is not the one the court, after applying all relevant interpretive tools, concludes is best. In the business of statutory interpretation, if it is not the best, it is not permissible.”).
^{16} As discussed further in the RTC document, EPA received a petition from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers for a waiver of the 2023 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement. In adjudicating that petition, EPA did not address the cellulosic waiver authority and instead focused on a potential waiver under the general waiver authority.
EPA is implementing the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume after the deadline articulated in the statute; CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) directs EPA to act “by November 30 of the preceding calendar year” to determine whether cellulosic biofuel production is likely to fall short of the volume requirements in a given year, and then reduce the standard to the projected volume available. Several commenters suggested that such untimely use is improper. We disagree. Notably, EPA has implemented the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume after the November 30 deadline on several occasions. ^{17} No party has specifically challenged EPA's use of the cellulosic waiver authority after the November 30 deadline, but petitioners have unsuccessfully challenged EPA's late issuance of standards under other RFS provisions. The D.C. Circuit has concluded that EPA retains the ability to issue late standards even when it acts after the statutory deadlines have passed. ^{18} We therefore rely on our past practice in implementing the RFS program and favorable case law to implement the cellulosic waiver authority to waive the volume requirements for a given year even when the November 30 deadline in the preceding year has passed, as it has in this instance.
^{17} See, e.g., 79 FR 25025 (May 2, 2014) (direct final rule reducing the 2013 cellulosic biofuel volume in May 2014), 80 FR 77420 (December 14, 2015) (final rule reducing the 2014 and 2015 cellulosic biofuel volumes in December 2015), 87 FR 39600 (July 1, 2022) (final rule reducing the 2020 and 2021 volumes in July 2022).
^{18} See ACE, 864 F.3d at 721. See further discussion on this topic in RTC Section 2.3.2.
CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) also refers to the “projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production” and the “projected volume available,” which some commenters suggested is another indication that the provision should or could only be used prospectively. EPA believes the best reading of the statute is instead that there are projections necessary to determine the “volume of . . . production” and the “volume available,” both when EPA acts in a timely manner by November 30 of the preceding year and when EPA waives the volume requirement after the November 30 date. The use of the term “projected” in the statute does contemplate the need for forward-looking estimates; however, it does not follow that the statutory language prohibits EPA from acting after November 30. ^{19}
^{19} See Loper Bright at 400.
We note that the statutory language indicates that the use of the cellulosic waiver authority is mandatory. That is, whenever the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume established under CAA section (o)(2)(B), EPA “shall reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel required under paragraph (2)(B) to the projected volume available during that calendar year.” ^{20} EPA implemented this provision for every year from 2010-2022 to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume consistent with the statutory directive that EPA shall reduce the volume when the requisite conditions are met. ^{21}
^{20} CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i).
^{21} EPA acknowledges that it did not waive the 2023 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement. See https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/epa-denial-petition-partial-waiver-2023-cellulosic-biofuel.
CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(ii) directs EPA to make CWCs available whenever it reduces the cellulosic biofuel volume under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D). CWCs—which are offered for sale to obligated parties at a price established by regulation per the statute ^{22} —provide compliance flexibility for obligated parties. However, it should be noted that CWCs only satisfy an obligated party's cellulosic biofuel obligation; unlike a cellulosic RIN, a CWC cannot be used to satisfy an obligated party's advanced biofuel or total renewable fuel obligation. ^{23} To obtain the same compliance value as a cellulosic RIN, an obligated party using a CWC for compliance with the cellulosic biofuel standard needs to also acquire an advanced or BBD RIN to use towards meeting its advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel obligations. When CWCs are made available, they generally limit or cap the price of cellulosic RINs. ^{24}
^{22} CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(iii); 40 CFR 80.1456.
^{23} 72 FR 14726-27 (March 26, 2010).
^{24} See, e.g., 85 FR 7025 (February 6, 2020); 87 FR 39616 (July 1, 2022).
CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) provides that EPA may reduce the applicable volume of total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel in years when EPA reduces the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel under that provision. That reduction must be less than or equal to the reduction in cellulosic biofuel. The D.C. Circuit explained:
There is no requirement to reduce these latter quotas, nor does the statute prescribe any factors that EPA must consider in making its decision. . . . In the absence of any express or implied statutory directive to consider particular factors, EPA reasonably concluded that it enjoys broad discretion regarding whether and in what circumstances to reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes under the cellulosic waiver provision. ^{25}
^{25} Monroe v. EPA, 750 F.3d 909, 915 (2014). See, also, ACE at 721.
Using this discretion, EPA has, in the past, declined to reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes in certain circumstances. ^{26} In other circumstances, EPA has reduced the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes using this authority. ^{27} It is worth noting that EPA's practice of reducing the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes utilizing the cellulosic waiver authority in past years served to carry through the partial waiver necessitated by the shortfall in cellulosic biofuel to the other nested renewable fuel categories when reducing the statutory cellulosic biofuel volumes established by Congress in 2007. In many cases reductions to the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes were necessary to enable compliance by obligated parties. For example, EPA reduced the cellulosic biofuel volume by over 15 billion gallons for 2022. Had EPA not also reduced the 2022 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes, these requirements would have been 15 billion gallons higher, far exceeding the market's ability to supply qualifying renewable fuels, even after considering available carryover RINs. In contrast, for 2024, a year for which EPA set the volume requirements using our set authority, the partial waiver of the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement is significantly smaller than in prior years (0.08 billion gallons), in part due to the fact that instead of starting with a statutory table volume set by Congress many years ago, EPA itself established the volume requirements in 2023 under the set authority. As discussed further in Section III.A, we are not adjusting the 2024 total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel volumes because those volumes have been achieved in the market.
^{26} See, e.g., 78 FR 49794, 49811 (August 15, 2013).
^{27} See, e.g., 80 FR 77420 (December 14, 2015). 81 FR 89746 (December 12, 2016).

III. Partial Waiver of the 2024 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement

A. Implementation of the Cellulosic Waiver Authority
The cellulosic waiver authority is specific regarding when it is available and how the volume reduction should be determined when acting under the authority, as discussed in Section II. EPA has determined that “the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume” for 2024 and thus use of the cellulosic waiver authority is mandatory to reduce the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume. In the Set 1 Rule, EPA established the “minimum applicable volume” of cellulosic biofuel for 2024 to be 1.09 billion RINs and used that volume to calculate the 2024 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard of 0.63 percent. ^{28} The actual number of cellulosic RINs that obligated parties will ultimately need to retire for compliance with the current standard will not be known until after the 2024 compliance deadline, ^{29} when obligated parties report to EPA their 2024 gasoline and diesel production and import volumes. ^{30} However, for the purpose of making a decision to partially waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement, we have assumed that the actual total 2024 cellulosic biofuel obligation, if not reduced, would be 1.09 billion RINs. ^{31} Based on RIN generation data for 2024, we project that only 1.01 billion cellulosic RINs were generated in 2024, representing the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel available in 2024. ^{32} This is 0.08 billion fewer RINs than the 1.09 billion RINs needed to comply with the original 2024 cellulosic biofuel standard, a shortfall of approximately seven percent. We therefore find that the circumstances have triggered the need for implementation of the cellulosic waiver authority for 2024.
^{28} 88 FR 44470-71 (July 12, 2023).
^{29} The compliance deadline for the 2024 standards will be the first quarterly reporting deadline after the effective date of this action revising the 2024 cellulosic biofuel standard. 40 CFR 80.1451(f)(1)(i)(B)( 5 ).
^{30} 40 CFR 80.1451 and 80.1427(a).
^{31} Because the compliance obligation is calculated on a percentage basis, if the actual gasoline and diesel volumes reported by obligated parties differ from the projected gasoline and diesel volumes that were used to derive the percentage standard, then the actual number of RINs required for compliance will differ from the projected volume that was used to calculate the percentage standard. Although we rely on the 1.09-billion-RIN projection for 2024 in the Set 1 Rule that was the basis for the 2024 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard, EPA would reach the same conclusion to waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement, for the reasons stated below, using a higher RIN obligation ( i.e., a higher gasoline and diesel projection).
^{32} See “Total Net Generation” RIN data table at: https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/rins-generated-transactions. This table includes all reported cellulosic RINs that were generated in 2024 and were not otherwise retired due to RIN generation error ( i.e., an invalid RIN). Thus, the volume of 2024 cellulosic RINs in this table is the volume of RINs that have been made available for compliance with the 2024 cellulosic biofuel standard.
When EPA determines that a waiver of the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement is appropriate under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i), EPA must then reduce the required cellulosic biofuel volume to “the projected volume available.” We have previously interpreted the phrase “projected volume available” to exclude carryover RINs when determining the volume adjustment to be made; this interpretation was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit in Sinclair. ^{33} EPA has consistently interpreted the “projected volume available” as “the volume of qualifying cellulosic biofuel projected to be produced or imported and available for use as transportation fuel in the U.S. in that year.” ^{34} In determining the “projected volume available,” EPA must take a “neutral aim at accuracy.” ^{35}
^{33} Sinclair, 101 F.4th at 883-86.
^{34} See, e.g., 87 FR 39600 (July 1, 2022). See also Sinclair, 101 F.4th at 883-86.
^{35} API v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
As discussed above, the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel available in 2024 was 1.01 billion RINs. Thus, when the cellulosic waiver authority is applied, EPA is only able to reduce the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume to the projected volume available of 1.01 billion RINs. However, in accordance with the statute, EPA is also required to make CWCs available to obligated parties, which can be used—along with additional BBD or advanced RINs—to cover any remaining shortfall. ^{36} The availability of CWCs helps ensure RFS program stability by reducing the likelihood that obligated parties may be forced into non-compliance with their RFS obligations; any obligated party that is unable to acquire sufficient cellulosic RINs to comply with their 2024 cellulosic biofuel obligations—plus any cellulosic RIN deficit carried from 2023 ^{37} —will be able to purchase CWCs to cover the shortfall. ^{38}
^{36} Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1405(d), the CWC price is calculated using the methodology specified in 40 CFR 80.1456(d) and posted on EPA's website at: https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/cellulosic-waiver-credits-under-renewable-fuel-standard-program.
^{37} As noted in the proposal, we are aware of RIN deficits from the 2023 compliance year that will need to be fulfilled by the 2024 compliance deadline. 89 FR 100442, 100445-46 (December 12, 2024). This topic is discussed further in the RTC document.
^{38} Unlike cellulosic RINs—which apply towards an obligated party's cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel obligations—CWCs only apply towards an obligated party's cellulosic biofuel obligation and not toward their nested advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel obligation. Obligated parties that satisfy their cellulosic biofuel obligations with CWCs would therefore also have to purchase additional BBD or advanced RINs to meet their associated advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel obligations.
Given that “the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume” for 2024, we are implementing the cellulosic waiver authority to waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement to 1.01 billion RINs, a reduction of 0.08 billion RINs from the original volume requirement of 1.09 billion RINs. This volume requirement matches the actual cellulosic RIN generation for 2024 of 1.01 billion RINs.
Finally, CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) provides that EPA may reduce the applicable volume of total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel in years when EPA reduces the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel under that provision. That reduction must be less than or equal to the reduction in cellulosic biofuel. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the cellulosic waiver authority provides EPA “broad discretion” to consider a variety of factors in determining whether to reduce the total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel volumes under this provision. ^{39} Advanced and total RIN generation for 2024 exceeded the required volumes by over 3.8 billion RINs (10.42 billion advanced RINs generated vs. 6.54 billion RIN advanced biofuel volume requirement) and 3.7 billion RINs (25.30 billion total RINs generated vs. 21.54 billion total renewable fuel volume requirement), respectively, notwithstanding the projected shortfall in cellulosic biofuel production. ^{40} Thus, we believe reductions to the 2024 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes are not necessary or warranted based on the available supply data, given that the market has provided volumes of these fuels in excess of the requirements established in the Set 1 Rule. Reductions in these volume requirements at this time would only serve to increase the number of advanced and total carryover RINs. Historically, we have declined to take actions that would inflate the number of available carryover RINs. ^{41}
^{39} ACE at 730-734. See also Monroe Energy, LLC v. EPA, 750 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
^{40} See “Total Net Generation” RIN data table at: https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/rins-generated-transactions. This table includes all reported RINs that were generated in 2024 and were not otherwise retired due to RIN generation error ( i.e., an invalid RIN). Thus, the volume of 2024 RINs in this table is the volume of RINs that have been made available for compliance with the 2024 RFS standards.
^{41} 87 FR 39600, 39621 (July 1, 2022) (“While EPA has previously set the RFS standards at what the market actually used (like for 2014 and 2015 in the 2014-2016 rule), we have never intentionally reduced the standards with the express intent to inflate the size of the carryover RIN bank.”); “Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: RFS Annual Rules—Response to Comments,” EPA-420-R-22-009, June 2022, Section 2.6.1.

B. Economic Impact Analysis
This section discusses our analysis of the anticipated economic impact of the partial waiver of the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement. Consistent with the goals of Executive Orders 12866 and 14192, this analysis is intended to provide transparency regarding the costs and benefits of this economically significant deregulatory action. Because we are reducing the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume, this action is expected to result in significant costs savings. However, quantitatively projecting the economic impact of this reduction is challenging for several reasons. First, the partial waiver is due to a shortfall in the volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2024. Because of this, higher volumes of cellulosic RINs cannot simply be made available at greater prices; instead, obligated parties will be unable to purchase additional quantities of 2024 cellulosic RINs at any price. The potential economic impact of this action is further complicated by the fact that while some obligated parties can defer some or all of their 2024 cellulosic biofuel obligation to 2025, other obligated parties that already carried cellulosic RIN deficits from 2023 into 2024 are required to fully satisfy their cellulosic biofuel obligations in 2024, including the cellulosic RIN deficits carried forward from 2023. Any party that fails to do so would likely be in non-compliance and could be subject to penalties. ^{42}
^{42} We recognize that the cellulosic waiver authority is mandatory, and thus avoids the potential noncompliance and lack of RINs described herein. Nevertheless, we describe these potential outcomes to illustrate the difficulty in calculating the cost savings of the action.
Despite the complications associated with estimating the economic impacts of this action, we can determine that it will result in cost savings. Because we are unable to estimate the cost of production of cellulosic biofuel that was not produced, we are estimating the cost savings of this action using RIN prices to approximate the cost of the marginal gallon of cellulosic biofuel relative to the petroleum fuel the marginal gallon displaces. ^{43} We are reducing only the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume. Because we are not reducing the 2024 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes, this action effectively replaces the reduced cellulosic biofuel volume with additional volumes of advanced biofuel, which generally has a lower marginal cost than cellulosic biofuel. ^{44} In 2024, the average price for a cellulosic (D3/D7) RIN was $3.11 and the average price for a D4/D5 RIN was $0.78. ^{45} The price difference between a D3/D7 RIN and a D4/D5 RIN was $2.34. Multiplying this price difference by the magnitude of the reduction in the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement (80 million RINs), we estimate a cost savings of $187 million from this action.
^{43} We are using these RIN prices to approximate the societal cost for these fuels. Our analyses indicate that, on average across the U.S., RIN costs are recovered by obligated parties and passed through to consumers. For a further discussion of the ability of obligated parties to recover the cost of RINs see “Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking to Change the RFS Point of Obligation,” EPA-420-R-17-008, November 2017.
^{44} The nested nature of the RFS program allows cellulosic biofuel to be used to meet the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volume requirements. Any cellulosic biofuel that can be supplied beyond the required volume can be used in place of advanced biofuel.
^{45} Prices based on EMTS data. RIN prices are the average of all trades of vintage 2023 and 2024 separated RINs in calendar year 2024.
Finally, we can reasonably project that because this action will reduce demand for cellulosic RINs, it is expected to directionally decrease cellulosic RIN prices. The exact magnitude of this price reduction depends on a wide range of market factors that prevent us from quantitively projecting a RIN price impact. At the same time, because this action incrementally increases demand for advanced RINs, it is projected to directionally increase BBD and advanced RIN prices. We note, however, that this price impact is expected to be relatively small, as this action will increase demand for advanced biofuel by the magnitude of the partial waiver of the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement (0.08 billion RINs). This is less than one percent of the supply of advanced biofuel for 2024 (10.41 billion RINs).

C. Calculation of 2024 Cellulosic Biofuel Percentage Standard
The obligated parties to which the percentage standards apply are producers and importers of gasoline and diesel, as defined by 40 CFR 80.2. Each obligated party multiplies the percentage standards by the sum of all non-renewable gasoline and diesel they produce or import to determine their Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs). ^{46} The RVOs are the number of RINs that the obligated party is responsible for procuring and retiring to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards for that year. As described in Section III.A, we are implementing the cellulosic waiver authority to partially waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement from 1.09 billion RINs to 1.01 billion RINs.
^{46} 40 CFR 80.1407.
The formula used to calculate the cellulosic biofuel percentage standard applicable to obligated parties as a function of their gasoline and diesel fuel production or importation is provided in 40 CFR 80.1405(c). Using the same values from the Set 1 Rule for the variables in this formula other than RFV CB (the cellulosic biofuel volume), ^{47} we have calculated the revised cellulosic biofuel percentage standard for 2024 to be 0.59 percent, down from 0.63 percent. ^{48} This percentage standard is included in the regulations at 40 CFR 80.1405(a) and applies to producers and importers of gasoline and diesel.
^{47} 88 FR 44519-21 (July 12, 2023).
^{48} See “Calculation of 2024 Cellulosic Biofuel Percentage Standard,” available in the docket for this action.

IV. Change to Calculation of Cellulosic Waiver Credit Price
As discussed in Section II.B, for any year for which EPA uses the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the required volume of cellulosic biofuel, EPA must provide obligated parties the opportunity to purchase CWCs. The price of these credits is determined using a formula specified in CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(ii), which is “at the higher of $0.25 per gallon or the amount by which $3.00 per gallon exceeds the average wholesale price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States,” adjusted for inflation. The RFS regulations previously specified that the “U.S. Total Gasoline Bulk Sales (Price) by Refiners as provided by the Energy Information Administration” is to be used to determine the average wholesale price of gasoline and the inflation adjustment. ^{49} However, this data source is no longer being issued by EIA and has not been updated since March 2022.
^{49} 40 CFR 80.1456(d)(2).
We are therefore revising our regulations to point to a new data source for the average wholesale price of gasoline to be used in the calculation of the CWC price. The only wholesale gasoline prices currently reported by EIA are spot prices for New York Harbor (conventional gasoline), U.S. Gulf Coast (conventional gasoline), and Los Angeles (RBOB regular gasoline). ^{50} We proposed to revise the regulations to calculate the average wholesale gasoline price using a weighted average of EIA's reported spot prices for wholesale gasoline using the weighting factors specified in Table IV-1. Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed changes and therefore we are finalizing these new data sources and weighting factors as proposed.
^{50} This data is publicly available at: EIA, “Spot Prices,” Petroleum & Other Liquids. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_m.htm.
Table IV-1—Weighting Factors for Calculating the Average Wholesale Gasoline Price
EIA spot price | Weighting factor ^a (%)
New York Harbor (conventional gasoline) | 37.5
U.S. Gulf Coast (conventional gasoline) | 37.5
Los Angeles (RBOB regular gasoline) | 25.0
^a Weighting factors based on approximate amounts of conventional gasoline (CG) and reformulated gasoline (RFG) sold in the United States, with an equal weighting factor for the New York Harbor and U.S. Gulf Coast CG prices. EPA currently estimates that approximately 25 percent of gasoline sold in the United States is RFG ( https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/reformulated-gasoline ).
Consistent with the approach used for the previous EIA data source, we are specifying that the CWC price is calculated using average monthly gasoline spot price data from the 12-month period ending June of the year prior to the relevant year ( e.g., July 2022 to June 2023 for the 2024 CWC price). Since we are using the cellulosic waiver authority to partially waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement in this action, CWCs will be made available to obligated parties to purchase for the 2024 compliance year. Using the new data sources and weighting factors in Table IV-1 results in a 2024 CWC price of $1.61. ^{51}
^{51} EPA, “2024 Cellulosic Waiver Credit Price Calculation,” EPA 420-B-25-017, June 2025.

V. Measurement of Renewable CNG/LNG Using Documentation
We are also amending 40 CFR 80.155(a) to clarify that renewable natural gas (RNG) RIN separators may obtain the measurement of renewable CNG/LNG through documentation. Under 40 CFR 80.155(a), measurements of renewable CNG/LNG must be made using specified in-line GC meters and flow meters, or with an EPA-accepted alternative measurement protocol. We proposed and are now finalizing an additional option to allow RNG RIN separators to use documentation that establishes the volumes of natural gas or renewable CNG/LNG dispensed to satisfy the continuous measurement requirement. Because these statements are typically based on readings from meters that generally comport with the already specified meter standards, EPA has concluded this is an appropriate approach for RNG RIN separators to determine the amount of renewable CNG/LNG used as transportation fuel.
Commenters were generally supportive of this proposed change. In the proposal, we provided the example of a pipeline or utility statement as acceptable documentation for purposes of establishing the volume of natural gas or renewable CNG/LNG. Several commenters suggested that EPA add language to clarify that weigh tickets and bills of lading are also acceptable documentation for renewable LNG, as well as specify default conversion factors for documentation that is not provided in Btu. We agree with the commenters and have added weigh tickets and bills of lading as further examples to the final regulations, as well as default conversion factors in 40 CFR 80.155(f).
EPA continues to evaluate the other proposed updates and clarifications to the RFS biogas regulations, including other proposed revisions to 40 CFR 80.155(a), and may finalize them in a later action.

VI. Severability
We intend for the regulations promulgated in this action to implement the cellulosic waiver credit price calculation and measurement of renewable CNG/LNG to be severable from our action to implement the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume. These actions are distinct and independent, with separate justifications. Therefore, if a court were to invalidate the use of the cellulosic waiver authority, we would intend for the regulatory changes to remain in place.

VII. Judicial Review
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) when the agency action consists of specifically enumerated actions or “any other nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, but “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” For locally or regionally applicable final actions that are based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect, the CAA reserves to the EPA complete discretion to decide whether to invoke the exception in (ii). ^{52}
^{52} Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th 738, 745 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (“EPA's decision whether to make and publish a finding of nationwide scope or effect is committed to the agency's discretion and thus is unreviewable”); Texas v. EPA, 983 F.3d 826, 83435 (5th Cir. 2020).
This final action modifies requirements under section 211( o ) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545( o ). Because this final action promulgates a revised standard and regulatory amendments under the CAA, it is “nationally applicable” under CAA section 307(b)(1) either as one of the specifically enumerated actions (“any control or prohibition under section 7545 of this title”) or as a “nationally applicable regulation[ ] promulgated . . . by the Administrator.” Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 5, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) does not affect the finality of the action for purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of the action.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This is an economically significant regulatory action because it meets the criteria in section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of the potential economic impacts associated with this action, available in Section III.B.

B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the economic impact associated with this action in Section III.B.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities related to this final rule and has assigned the following OMB control numbers 2060-0725, 2060-0740, and 2060-0749. This action reduces the required cellulosic biofuel volume for 2024 and does not impose new or different reporting requirements on regulated parties than already exist for the RFS program.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule relieves regulatory burden on the small entities subject to the rule.
The small entities directly regulated by the RFS program are small refiners, which are defined at 13 CFR 121.201. EPA believes that there are currently 6 refiners (owning 7 refineries) producing gasoline and/or diesel that meet the definition of small entity by having 1,500 employees or fewer. This action decreases burden via a reduction in the 2024 cellulosic biofuel standard, which applies proportionally to all obligated parties, including small refiners. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements a mandate specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action will be implemented at the Federal level and affects transportation fuel refiners, blenders, marketers, distributors, importers, exporters, and renewable fuel producers and importers. Tribal governments would be affected only to the extent they produce, purchase, and use regulated fuels. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it reduces the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume and does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action reduces the required cellulosic biofuel volume for 2024 consistent with the volume of such fuel actually made available in 2024. Therefore, it is not expected to have any impact on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. In general, the RFS program is designed to achieve positive effects on the Nation's transportation fuel supply by increasing energy independence and security.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51
This action does not involve technical standards.
ASTM D3588 is referenced in the amendatory text of this document and has already been approved for § 80.155. There are no changes to the IBR material.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

IX. Statutory Authority
Statutory authority for this action comes from sections 114, 203-05, 208, 211, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7522-24, 7542, 7545, and 7601.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
Lee Zeldin,

Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 80 as follows:

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).

Subpart E—Biogas-Derived Renewable Fuel
2. Amend § 80.155 by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(4) and (5); and
c. Revising paragraph (f).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
§ 80.155
Sampling, testing, and measurement.
(a) Biogas and RNG continuous measurement. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, any party required to measure the volume of biogas, RNG, or renewable CNG/LNG under this subpart must continuously measure using meters that comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, or have an accepted alternative measurement protocol as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section:
* * * * *
(4) [Reserved]
(5) An RNG RIN separator must measure natural gas or renewable CNG/LNG using one of the following:
(i) A method specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(ii) Documentation ( e.g., pipeline or utility statements, scale tickets, or bills of lading) that establishes the volume of natural gas or renewable CNG/LNG. Documentation must be specified in Btu LHV or converted as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(f) Unit conversions. (1) A party converting between Btu HHV and Btu LHV for biogas, treated biogas, natural gas, or CNG/LNG must use the ratio of HHV and LHV of methane as specified in ASTM D3588 (incorporated by reference, see § 80.12).
(2) A party with documentation under paragraph (a)(5) of this section that is not specified in Btu must convert to Btu LHV as follows:
(i) A party converting between scf and Btu LHV for CNG must use 934 Btu LHV/scf.
(ii) A party converting between pounds and Btu LHV for LNG must use 21,240 Btu LHV/lb.
* * * * *

Subpart M—Renewable Fuel Standard
3. Amend § 80.1405 by revising entry “2024” in table 1 to paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 80.1405
What are the Renewable Fuel Standards?
(a) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph ( a )—Annual Renewable Fuel Standards
Year | Cellulosic biofuel standard (%) | Biomass- based diesel standard (%) | Advanced biofuel standard (%) | Renewable fuel standard (%) | Supplemental total renewable fuel standard (%)
* * * * * * *
2024 | 0.59 | 2.82 | 3.79 | 12.50 | n/a
* * * * * * *
* * * * *
4. Amend § 80.1456 by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
§ 80.1456
What are the provisions for cellulosic biofuel waiver credits?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) The wholesale price of gasoline is calculated by applying the weighting factors specified in table 1 to this paragraph (d)(2) to the average monthly gasoline spot price values specified in table 1 for the twelve-month period ending June of the year preceding the compliance period.
Table 1 to Paragraph ( d )(2)—Wholesale Price of Gasoline Weighting Factors
Gasoline spot price data source ^1 | Weighting factor (%)
Conventional Gasoline—New York Harbor, Regular | 37.5
Conventional Gasoline—U.S. Gulf Coast, Regular | 37.5
| RBOB Regular Gasoline—Los Angeles | 25.0
^1 Reported by the Energy Information Administration.
* * * * *
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[MD Docket No. 24-85; FCC 25-31; FR ID 301014]
Assessment and Collection of Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2024

AGENCY:
Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopts targeted revisions to its existing methodology of assessing regulatory fees for space and earth stations that will be effective for fiscal year 2025.

DATES:
Effective on September 14, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Duall, 202-418-1103, Stephen.Duall@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This is a summary of the Commission's Third Report and Order in MD Docket No. 24-85, FCC 25-31, adopted June 5, 2025, and released June 9, 2025. The full text of this document is available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-31A1.pdf. The full text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The Commission has prepared an Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the potential impact of the proposed rule and policy changes contained in the Commission's Third Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth in the appendix of the FCC Document https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-31A1.pdf and a summary is included below.
Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The Commission's Third Report and Order does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burdens for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In the Commission's Third Report and Order, the Commission assessed the effects of its adoption of rules implementing the Part 25 licensing and operating provisions and technical requirements. The Commission finds that such requirements are unlikely to directly impact businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

I. Introduction
1. In the Third Report and Order (Order), the Commission adopts targeted amendments to its existing methodology of assessing regulatory fees for space and earth stations pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended. These changes will be effective for the fiscal year 2025 (FY 2025) assessment and collection of regulatory fees.
2. The Commission began this proceeding after the creation of the Space Bureau in 2023 to ensure that its regulatory fees structure for space and earth station fee payors remain fair, administrable, and sustainable in light of the substantial changes in the space industry in recent years. The Commission is mindful of the significance of ensuring its work is consistent with such overarching goals because the fee schedule adopted for fiscal year 2024 contained sizable increases in the fees assessed to space and earth station fee payors compared to the previous fiscal year.
3. In the Order, the Commission takes two key actions for the current fiscal year to address this situation. First, the Commission assesses regulatory fees on stations once they are authorized, rather than when the stations are certified to be operational, as is currently the case. Second, the Commission splits existing regulatory fee categories for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) into two new fee categories: small constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and large constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more). These changes will better distinguish between space station regulatees and will more accurately apportion fee burdens among them, which should result in lower per unit regulatory fees for the majority of space station fee payors compared to fiscal year 2024. The Order also adopts an approach that broadens the base of regulatory fee payors to better align fees with the benefits of regulation and that is less subjective than the current system that allocates fees based on the estimated “complexity” of an NGSO system.
4. The changes adopted support the Commission's goal that its regulatory fees are fair, administrable, and sustainable. The Commission views the targeted changes adopted as a step to quickly improve the assessment of regulatory fees for the current fiscal year, but the Commission also recognizes that as the industry develops, and as the Commission seeks to streamline much of the Space Bureau's operations, that additional improvements to the methodology may be proposed in future fiscal years.

II. Background
5. Section 9 of the Act obligates the Commission to assess and collect regulatory fees each year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its annual salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation. Thus, the Commission has no discretion regarding the total amount to be collected in any given fiscal year. In accordance with the statute, each year the Commission proposes adjustments to the prior fee schedule under section 9(c) to “(A) reflect unexpected increases or decreases in the number of units subject to the payment of such fees; and (B) result in the collection of the amount required” by the Commission's annual appropriation. The Commission will also propose amendments to the fee schedule under section 9(d) “if the Commission determines that the schedule requires amendment so that such fees reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” In administering its regulatory fee program, the agency strives to adhere to the goals of ensuring that the program is fair, administrable, and sustainable.
6. The Commission released the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM on March 13, 2024, which initiated an examination and review of regulatory fees for space and earth station payors that are regulated by the new Space Bureau. When the Commission adopted regulatory fees for FY 2023, it noted that it would be the last year for doing so using the nomenclature of certain fee payors being regulated by the International Bureau. The Commission noted that the creation of the Space Bureau and Office of International Affairs could result in changes in the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth station fee payors resulting from changes in FTEs, due to increased oversight on various relevant industries. The Commission anticipated that the changes in the industry that resulted in the creation of the Space Bureau would likely also result in changes in the relative FTE burdens between and among space and earth station fee payors. Accordingly, the Commission sought comment in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM on a range of proposed changes related to the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth stations under its existing regulatory fee methodology, as well as under a proposed alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees.
7. In June 2024, the Commission adopted an order in this proceeding that amended the methodology used to calculate regulatory fees for small satellites by no longer calculating it as a percentage of the NGSO “less complex” and “other” space station fee categories. Instead, the Commission set the regulatory fee for “Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Small Satellite)” for FY 2024 at the level set for FY 2023 ($12,215), with annual adjustments thereafter to reflect the percentage change in the FCC appropriation, unit count, and FTE allocation percentage from the previous fiscal year. It also determined to assess regulatory fees for space stations that are principally used for Rendezvous & Proximity Operations (RPO) or On-Orbit Servicing (OOS), including Orbit Transfer Vehicles (OTV), using the existing fee category for “small satellites” on an interim basis until the Commission can develop more experience in how these space stations will be regulated.
8. In September 2024, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order in this proceeding that revised the allocation of space station regulatory fees using the existing methodology for calculating their proportional share of regulatory fees from 80% of space station regulatory fees being allocated to GSO space station fee payors and 20% of the space station regulatory fees being allocated to NGSO space station fee payors to 60% of space station regulatory fees being allocated to GSO space station payors and 40% to NGSO space station payors (that is, changing from an “80/20 GSO/NGSO split” to a “60/40 GSO/NGSO split”). It also adopted a re-apportionment of regulatory fees between earth and space station payors based on the percentage of direct FTEs involved in the licensing and regulation of each category.
9. The Commission did not act on the remaining proposals that were made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM. It instead concluded that action on these issues may benefit from further consideration, and stated that further comment on these remaining proposals would be sought in a further notice of proposed rulemaking. In February 2025, the Commission released a further notice in this proceeding (Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM) that sought comment on the proposals made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM that were not adopted for FY 2024. Those proposals include assessing regulatory fees on authorized, but not operational, space and earth stations; using an alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees; establishing tiers within existing NGSO space station fee categories based on the number of space stations in the system; and creating new categories of earth station regulatory fees.
10. Comments in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM were due on March 27, 2025, and replies were due on April 11, 2025. The Commission received 19 comments and 17 reply comments. In addition, several entities made presentations to the Commission pursuant to its rules governing ex parte communications.

III. Discussion
11. The Commission now amends its existing methodology for assessing regulatory fees for space and earth stations by (1) assessing regulatory fees based on when stations were authorized, rather than when the stations are certified to be operational, as is currently the case, and (2) eliminating the existing regulatory fee categories for “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Less Complex” and “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Other” and creating new fee categories for “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Small Constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations)” and “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Large Constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more).” The Commission adopts these changes to become effective for fiscal year 2025. The Commission declines at this time to adopt the alternative methodology to remove the distinction between geostationary and non-geostationary space stations and to assess space and earth station regulatory fees based on a common unit of space station fees that was put forth in this proceeding, as well as other suggestions to change its regulatory fee methodologies for space and earth stations made by commenters. The Commission also makes no changes at this time to the existing methodology for assessing regulatory fees for earth stations.

A. Objectives of Proceeding
12. As explained above, the Commission commenced this proceeding in 2024 to focus on space and earth station regulatory fees. In implementing its statutory authority, the Commission considers the adoption of a new regulatory fee category or a change in an existing regulatory fee category only when the Commission develops a sufficient basis for doing so under Section 9 ensuring that its actions are consistent with the overarching goal that its regulatory fees are fair, administrable, and sustainable. These goals must work within the explicit statutory requirements of section 9 that the Commission collect fees by determining “the full-time equivalent number of employees” performing specified activities in the Bureaus and Offices, and they are intended to guide adjustments that the Commission must make from time to time to its regulatory fee assessments. As discussed below, the Commission finds that it can better achieve these statutory requirements and overarching goals by adopting targeted changes to its existing fee methodology than by adopting an entirely new regulatory fee methodology.

B. Continued Use of the Existing Methodology
13. For fiscal year 2025, the Commission continues to use the Commission's existing methodology, with targeted changes identified below, to assess the regulatory fees for Space Bureau fee payors. Accordingly, the Commission declines at this time to adopt the alternative fee methodology set forth in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, and for which additional comment was sought in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM.
14. The Commission is acutely aware of the financial impact of regulatory fees, particularly on smaller and less capitalized space companies. Accordingly, the Commission is presently focused on reducing the total fee burden to be divided among regulated entities by making the Space Bureau's operations more efficient. The Commission finds that continued use of the existing methodology will maintain stability and prevent unnecessary disruption while broader reforms are ongoing. At the same time, targeted changes to the existing methodology will substantially reduce the fee burden for a large class of payors.
15. Central to the alternative methodology is a common initial unit of regulatory fee payment for all space stations, regardless of which orbit they are designed to operate in, and the elimination of all separate fee categories for GSO and NGSO space stations, except for the fee category for Space Stations (per license/call sign) (Small Satellite), which would be retained in its existing form. The alternative methodology would create a single space station fee category for “Space Stations (Per Call Sign in Geostationary Orbit or Per System in Non-Geostationary Orbit).” The category would be tiered, with a single GSO space station or a NGSO system with up to 100 authorized space stations constituting this initial tier and being counted as one unit for assessment of space station regulatory fees. Additional tiers would be created to account for NGSO systems with more than 100 authorized space stations, for example 500 or 1000 space stations per NGSO system per additional tier. Each tier would be counted as an additional unit for assessment of space station regulatory fees. The total number of units (initial and additional units) would be added together and the total space station allocation of the Space Bureau share would be evenly divided among the total number of units, resulting in a per unit regulatory fee for the fiscal year.
16. The Commission emphasizes that its decision not to adopt the alternative methodology at this time does not foreclose consideration of it (or a variation of it) in a future proceeding. As the Commission has observed, the alternative methodology could achieve its goals of making its Space Bureau regulatory fees fair, administrable, and sustainable. Furthermore, comments received in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM broadly supported adoption of the alternative methodology as the preferred option for amending the methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees. Nonetheless, as the Commission streamlines and modernizes the Space Bureau's licensing and related activities, there are likely to be corresponding changes to FTE burdens related to oversight of Space Bureau regulatory fee payors. Consequently, the Commission finds that now is not the time to adopt a wholly new methodology for space station regulatory fees. Rather, the Commission finds that the overarching goals of fair, administrable, and sustainable regulatory fees can equally be achieved by targeted changes to the existing methodology.
17. The Commission observes that the changes in the space industry that led to the creation of the Space Bureau and the Commission's re-examination of space and earth station regulatory fees are still ongoing. The Commission is accordingly mindful that any wholesale departure from its existing methodology at this juncture runs significant the risk of adopting a new fee methodology that still reflects past assumptions about licensing and regulation of space and earth stations. For example, the alternative methodology remains committed to GSO space stations as the “standard” unit for assessing space station regulatory fees, with fees for NGSO systems expressed in terms of equivalence to a GSO space station. It is unclear whether this is a suitable foundation on which to build a new regulatory fee structure. Furthermore, the very nature of GSO space stations is undergoing change with the increasing availability of “small GSO” space stations, which raise questions about whether the same level of oversight is needed to license and regulate as traditional, large GSO space stations upon which the alternative methodology relies. Thus, the Commission declines to adopt an entirely new regulatory fee methodology at this time while these substantial changes in the space industry are still ongoing.
18. As the Commission has redoubled its efforts in recent months to simplify and modernize its licensing and related operations, the Commission expects changes in the FTE burden will be needed for oversight of Space Bureau regulatory fee payors. The Commission also agrees with comments that it should not undertake a major overhaul of its space and earth station regulatory fee methodologies in light of the ongoing modernization efforts. Since the fiscal year ends on September 30, these modernization efforts may not be completed in time to impact the FTE burden of oversight or otherwise relate to the statutory framework for the exercise of its regulatory fee assessment for fiscal year 2025. The Commission, however, expects these efforts to bear fruit in the near future and, assuming so, will consider them in relevant future fiscal years as they relate to its statutory authority to assess and collect regulatory fees.
19. For all these reasons, the Commission determines that the best course during these changing times is to focus on the core responsibilities that the Commission undertakes during its regulatory fee proceedings: to follow the requirements set forth in section 9 of Act, with the overarching goals of making its regulatory fees fair, administrable, and sustainable. For the reasons set forth below, the Commission finds that it can meet these requirements and goals with targeted amendments to its existing space and earth station regulatory fee methodology. Since the Commission can do this, while preserving the flexibility to make future targeted amendments in the future, the Commission shall follow that course.

C. Assessment of Fees on Authorized Space and Earth Stations
20. Overview. The Commission amends its current methodology for assessing regulatory fees for space and earth station regulatees from assessing fees only after notification that the station is operational to assessing fees when the station has received a license or grant of market access from the Commission. In past years, regulatory fees for space stations were assessed only when the space stations are certified by their operator to be operational. An earth station payor was required to pay regulatory fees only after it had certified that the earth station's construction was complete, but in the rare instances in which a license limits an earth station's operational authority to a particular satellite system, the fee was not due until the first satellite of the related system becomes operational within the meaning of the Commission's rules. The Commission finds, however, that the objectives of section 9 of the Act would be better met by assessing regulatory fees once a space or earth station is licensed or authorized, rather than, as now, waiting until a space or earth station becomes operational.
21. As the Commission has previously observed, significant FTE burdens are involved with the licensing of space and earth stations, even before a station becomes operational. A licensee or grantee already benefits from the FTE levels necessary to review and grant the application for future operations of the station, as well as from the FTE levels used to protect the benefits conferred by the grant of a license or of U.S. market access, such as use of spectrum and orbital resources and protection from interference, which convey upon issuance of the license or grant. Moreover, given the bespoke nature of many satellite systems, Space Bureau staff expertise is used by the industry before, during, and after an application (including modifications thereof) or petitions for rulemaking are filed. In such situations, fee payors with systems that become operational earlier than other licensed systems bear the entire fee burden of regulatory work done on behalf of all regulated systems. Furthermore, if an authorized space station never becomes operational, then the licensee would never be subject to regulatory fees to recover the FTE burdens associated with regulating such space stations, and other licensees with operational satellites must bear the costs associated with space stations that were authorized, but never become operational. In addition, assessing regulatory fees on authorized, not just operational stations, broadens the base of regulatory fee payors, spreading the recovery of fees from all licensees who benefit from the Space Bureau's licensing and regulatory activities, and potentially lowering the per unit regulatory fee burden by increasing the number of units on which fees are assessed.
22. Comments nearly unanimously support assessing regulatory fees when space and earth stations are authorized, rather than when they are operational, based on the observations previously made in the proceeding. Only two objections were made to the proposal: one asking not to apply regulatory fees to authorized, but not yet operational, earth stations; and one arguing that the Commission should continue its practice of assessing regulatory fees solely on operational stations, absent explicit authority from Congress to do otherwise. Regarding the former, the Commission sees no reason to treat earth stations differently from space stations, because significant FTE burdens are involved with the licensing of both prior to becoming operational, and both benefit from FTE burdens used to protect the benefit conferred by the authorization itself. As to the latter objection, Congress has explicitly directed the Commission to recover its annual S&E appropriation through regulatory fees, and the S&E appropriation includes funding for FTE burdens spent reviewing and granting applications, which is accrued regardless of when a station becomes operational. Congress has also already explicitly provided the Commission authority, in section 9(d) of the Act, to adjust its regulatory fees by rule if it determines that the schedule of fees requires amendment, and such adjustment by rule is what is being adopted in this proceeding. Section 9 does not limit the assessment of regulatory fees to operational stations, and Congress affirmatively deleted, as obsolete, the prior portion of section 9 that was the basis for the Commission's previous decision to assess regulatory fees only on operational space stations. Accordingly, the assessment of regulatory fees on authorized stations is wholly within the explicit authority given by Congress and is consistent with section 9 of the Act.
23. Consistent with past practice and for purposes of fiscal year 2025, the Commission will continue, however, to assess regulatory fees on station licenses and market access grants as of the start of the fiscal year, i.e. October 1, 2024. Although there is support on the record for alternative methods for assessing regulatory fees on any space station authorized during the fiscal year. At this time, the Commission finds that it is not administrable to assess fees on space stations authorized at any point during the fiscal year. One proposal in the record is to assess regulatory fees on authorized space and earth stations regardless of when in the fiscal year an authorization is granted, and to “pro rate” the assessed fee based on the number of calendar days or fiscal quarters that the station has been authorized in the fiscal year. Because in most cases the Commission assesses regulatory fees based on FTE share of the category of fee payors divided by the number of units of fee payors, pro-rated regulatory fees would require the Commission to take into account partial units, which would introduce complexity into the calculation without clear benefit. Such a result would not serve the Commission's goal of ensuring that its fees are administrable. Accordingly, the Commission will continue to assess regulatory fees on space and earth stations that are authorized as of the start of the fiscal year.
24. Similarly, the Commission will continue the practice of providing a list of all space stations that are eligible to be assessed regulatory fees in an appendix to the annual notice of proposed rulemaking for the assessment and collection of regulatory fee for the fiscal year. Comments widely support the utility of this practice, and the Commission agrees that it has been an efficient method of providing notice and awareness of which fee payors are subject to regulatory fees for the fiscal year. The Commission declines to rely instead on the Space Bureau's Approved Space Station List for notice and awareness of which space stations are subject to regulatory fees for the fiscal year. The Commission finds that an appendix to the annual notice of proposed rulemaking will better serve its goal of providing space stations with notice of regulatory fees.
25. The Commission declines to adopt exceptions or other carve-outs to assessing fees on all authorized space and earth stations, regardless of their operational status. As an initial matter, the Commission lacks the authority to exempt whole categories of fee payors from regulatory fees, since the decision to exempt whole categories of fee payors resides with Congress under section 9 of the Act. The Commission also finds that broadening the base to include authorized, but not operational, stations more accurately allocates the FTE burdens and result in lower per unit regulatory fees for most space and earth station operators. In any event, the rationales for assessing fees on stations when they are authorized remain applicable, even in the circumstances discussed below where proposals were made to exempt or carve out certain categories of stations that are authorized, but are non-operational or conduct solely non-revenue producing operations. Each are discussed in turn.
26. Pre-operational stations. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM sought comment on whether to adopt new, separate fee categories for space and earth stations that are authorized, but not fully operational, based on a suggestion that the FTE burdens associated with licensing and oversight of authorized, but non-operational, stations are less than those associated with operational stations. After review of the record, the Commission affirms the prior tentative conclusion that substantial FTE burdens in the Space Bureau are dedicated to the review and action on space and earth station applications, and that entities with authorized, but not yet operational stations, still benefit from these burdens, as well as from a wide-range of regulatory benefits, utilizing both direct and indirect FTEs. In addition, the record did not provide a sufficient basis for differentiating FTE burdens for authorized, but not yet operational, stations, and the Commission agrees with comments that adopting separate fees for such stations would complicate the regulatory fee regime without clear benefit.
27. Post-operational and TT&C-only space stations. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM sought comment on whether it is feasible to assess a separate category of annual regulatory fees for space stations that remain authorized solely to conduct telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C) operations, for example in order to complete end-of-life disposal plans pursuant to orbital debris mitigation plans approved by the Commission as part of the authorization process. Most of the parties who commented on the proposal supported the concept of continuing to not assess fees, or to assess a lower fee, for non-operational, “TT&C-only” space stations, although some comments oppose any different treatment of authorized space stations. No party provided any information as to the feasibility of a separate fee or how such a fee should be calculated.
28. The Commission appreciates but remains unconvinced by arguments to not assess regulatory fees on space stations solely for TT&C operations or space stations solely conducting TT&C operations necessary to complete end-of-life disposal plans. In both instances, regulatory fees may be assessed when the space station is not intended to generate revenue from its authorized communications, or is no longer generating revenue from them. Indeed, the Commission has previously held that a non-U.S. licensed space station that communicates with a U.S.-licensed earth station solely for TT&C purposes does not fall within the category of a non-U.S. licensed space station with access to the U.S. market for regulatory fee purposes. It has also found that regulatory fees are not assessed on space stations that have ceased operations and are authorized solely for TT&C to conduct experimental communications, or to conduct end-of-life disposal maneuvers.
29. The Commission's prior precedent, however, is inapplicable to a fee structure that assesses fees on authorized stations, such as the one adopted in the Order. The Commission previously declined to assess fees for TT&C-only space stations during the time it limited regulatory fees to operational stations. Applying that exclusion to a fee structure that assesses fees on authorized stations is inconsistent with the rationale for adopting the new methodology and will undermine the purposes underlying it, including widening the base of regulatory fee payors. The Commission has previously recognized that assessing regulatory fees on non-operational stations has the potential to impose costs and create financial risk. Nonetheless, the Commission tentatively concluded that these concerns do not outweigh the need to assess regulatory fees on regulatees of the same class who benefit from its FTE efforts, which the Commission affirms in the Order in adopting the proposal to assess fees on authorized space and earth stations, even before such stations become operational. As stated above, the objectives of section 9 of the Act would be better met by assessing regulatory fees once a space or earth station is licensed or authorized because significant FTE burdens are involved with the licensing of space and earth stations, even before a station becomes operational, and because Space Bureau staff expertise is utilized by the industry before, during, and after an application (including modifications thereof) is filed. These reasons also apply to space and earth stations that are used solely for TT&C, or are being used for TT&C solely for post-mission disposal purposes. These TT&C communications are still radiocommunications authorized by the Commission and they continue to be subject to regulatory oversight by the Commission. This is true even in instances of TT&C solely for post-mission disposal, due to Commission oversight of compliance with the terms of their orbital debris mitigation plans. Accordingly, there is not a sufficient basis to find that regulatory fees should not be assessed on TT&C only space stations, or stations that are no longer operational, under the amended methodology adopted in the Order.
30. Furthermore, excluding TT&C-only space stations may be inequitable for other reasons. As an example, the Commission is considering how to modify its rules to better accommodate the licensing and regulatory oversight of space stations that are used primarily in support of in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM), including how to assess regulatory fees for such stations. Because these stations often are authorized to use radiocommunications solely for TT&C, without any other revenue-producing radiocommunication service being provided, categorically exempting TT&C-only space stations from regulatory fees now could prematurely exclude such stations wholly from regulatory fee assessments, even though such stations benefit from Commission FTEs as part of their licensing and regulatory oversight. In addition, exempting non-U.S. licensed space stations from regulatory fee assessments when communications with U.S.-licensed earth stations are solely for TT&C purposes would provide non-U.S. licensed space stations with an unfair advantage, unless the Commission were to do the same for all U.S.-licensed space stations, which the Commission does not find best serves the objectives of section 9 of the Act for the reasons stated above.
31. To facilitate the transition to the amended methodology, however, the Commission will not assess regulatory fees on authorized space stations that have already commenced post-mission disposal plans as of the release date of the Order, provided that the authorized space stations are conducting TT&C solely for the purpose of executing approved post-mission disposal plans. Comments suggest that there is merit to assessing regulatory fees for space stations that have reached the end of life, but that such fees should apply prospectively. The Commission agrees that prospective application is appropriate in this limited instance, since it is highly unlikely that operators already undertaking disposal plans are able to adjust their plans and such operators are few in number.
32. The Commission also expects to examine again in a future proceeding whether it is feasible to ascertain whether FTE burdens ascribed to the licensing and regulatory oversight of space stations authorized solely for TT&C communications are lower, such that a new, separate fee category might be able to be created for such stations. At this time, however, the Commission does not have sufficient record to reach a determination on this issue.
33. Stations with multiple authorizations and RPO/OOS stations. The Commission sought comment on a proposal to assess regulatory fees in instances where there are separately identifiable space station authorizations, but which the space stations have not been considered to be separably operational and therefore have not been subject to separate regulatory fees. For example, a GSO satellite may operate in certain frequency bands under a license by the Commission and may communicate with U.S.-licensed space stations in other frequency bands pursuant to a grant of U.S. market access. Likewise, a NGSO space station fee payor may operate some space stations in its system under a U.S. license and may operate other space stations under a grant of U.S. market access. In the past, the space station fee payor has been assessed only a single regulatory fee, rather than one for each authorization or grant of market access. The Commission also previously tentatively concluded that a space station attached to a GSO space station as part of RPO or OOS operations would not be assessed fees separate from, and in addition to, any regulatory fees assessed on the space station that is being serviced or that is having its mission extended. The premise underlying the prior tentative conclusion was that the RPO or OOS space station is operating as part of an existing GSO space station, rather than as a separate operational space station, and therefore the regulatory fee burden for the RPO or OOS space station would be included in the fee collected from the GSO space station fee payor. Upon further consideration, the Commission reversed its position and tentatively concluded that the requirements and purpose of section 9 of the Act would be better met by separately assessing regulatory fees on such attached RPO or OOS space stations.
34. Comments in this proceeding support continuing not assessing separate regulatory fees for the same satellite, even in circumstances where there are multiple space station authorizations and call signs. No party commented on the Commission's tentative conclusion regarding assessing regulatory fees on RPO and OOS space stations, regardless of whether they are attached to another station or not.
35. The Commission disagrees with commenters' that argue that the Commission should continue to assess only a single regulatory fee in instances where there are separately identifiable space station authorizations for the same satellite and where existing Commission rules do not permit the consolidation of authorizations after grant. The commenters' arguments for an exception are premised on the nature of the operations of the space station authorizations, but the Commission has determined that operational status is no longer the appropriate basis for determining whether to assess regulatory fees. In the case of a satellite that is in part U.S.-licensed, and is in part non-U.S. licensed, there are separate and distinct licenses and grants, each evidenced by a separate call sign, often to different licensees/grantees, which cannot be consolidated under the Commission's existing rules into a single call sign. This is also true of an RPO or OOS space station, even if it is attached to another space station for servicing. A single regulatory fee might make sense if the Commission's fees were intended to recover solely the FTEs associated with regulatory oversight of a satellite's operations, but section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to recover all aspects of its licensing and regulatory functions—before, during, and after authorization. Where there are separate station authorizations for a single satellite, evidenced by separate call signs, the Commission finds it is more in line with Congress's intent to assess separate regulatory fees to recover the separate FTE burdens associated with each authorization. This is also true for small satellites or spacecrafts, which the Commission has similarly determined should be assessed regulatory fees per license or call sign, rather than per system. Accordingly, the Commission will assess regulatory fees based on separate license or grant of market access in these cases, as evidenced by separate call signs. To the extent that comments argue that Commission rules do not allow them to combine authorizations or call signs for separate space stations because these authorizations are not for a single NGSO system, the Commission finds that it is more appropriate to address this situation through the Space Bureau's attempts to modernize the licensing and regulation of these new types of space services before seeking changes to the regulatory fee methodology.
36. For NGSO space stations that are not within the category of small satellites or spacecraft, the Commission has previously determined that licensing and assessment of regulatory fees is appropriate per system of NGSO space stations, rather than per call sign. This in part is due to the nature of NGSO space stations operating as constellations rather than individual satellites, and in part due to the nature of how NGSO space stations are licensed, using processing rounds, which may necessitate, or at least provide strong incentives for, applicants filing for new frequency bands for the use in the same constellation as new applications that are automatically assigned new call signs by the Commission's electronic filing system, International Communications Filing System (ICFS). Generally, NGSO licenses are able to consolidate these separate call signs under a single call sign post-authorization if they are part of a single system. This consolidation of authorizations and call signs is not possible, however, for a system that includes both U.S.-licensed space stations and non-U.S. licensed space stations, since the system would consist of two distinct forms of authorization: one is a license to a Commission-licensed space station and the other is a grant of market access for a communications between a non-U.S. licensed space station and U.S.-licensed earth stations.
37. The Commission observes that, in instances where a NGSO system has some space stations licensed by the U.S., and some space stations licensed by another administration, there is reason to require separate regulatory fees based on the reasoning above that there are separate and distinct licenses and grants, each evidenced by a separate call sign, often to different licensees/grantees. The Commission declines, however, to change its existing policy at this time, since the record to date does not provide sufficient information to assess fully the possible impacts of a change from assessing fees on NGSO space stations as “systems,” rather than by authorizations evidenced by separate call signs, particularly when calculating whether a system would be categorized as a small or large constellation under the amended fee categories adopted in the Order.
38. Co-located stations and on-orbit spares. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM sought comment on whether regulatory fees should be assessed on GSO space stations that are co-located with other GSO space stations or that serve as non-operational “on-orbit spares” for other operational GSO space stations. Such stations are not currently considered to be separably operational and have not been assessed regulatory fees for this reason. The Commission has observed, however, that separable direct FTEs are utilized to license and regulate these space stations. Comments largely support the continuation of not assessing regulatory fees on on-orbit spares and GSO space stations co-located with another GSO space station, although support is not universal.
39. The Commission finds that the goals of section 9 are not served by continuing to not assess regulatory fees on space stations simply because they are co-located with other operational space stations or serve as on-orbit spares to other operational space stations. The premise that underlies both instances is that the space stations were not considered to be separately operational, but the Commission has determined that operational status is no longer the appropriate basis for determining whether to assess regulatory fees. As is the case for stations with multiple authorizations, a single regulatory fee would make sense if the Commission's fees were intended to recover solely the regulatory oversight of satellite's operations, but section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to recover all aspects of its licensing and regulatory functions—before, during, and after authorization. In the case of co-located or on-orbit spare space stations, the amount of FTE resources required to license these space stations does not appear to be substantially different from that required to license other space stations, since staff must still evaluate the applications to determine compliance with the Commission's rules and policies, and such space stations receive licenses that confer benefits to the licensees. Accordingly, where there are separate station authorizations for co-located space stations or on-orbit spare space stations, evidenced by separate call signs, the Commission finds it is more in line with Congress's intent to assess separate regulatory fees to recover the separate FTE burdens associated with each authorization.

D. Amendment of Existing Methodology To Establish NGSO—Small Constellations and NGSO—Large Constellations To Replace NGSO—Less Complex and NGSO—Other
40. Under the current system, 80% of the share of NGSO space station fees are allocated to the NGSO—Other fee category and 20% to the NGSO—Less Complex fee category, after subtracting a pro rata amount of the total fees assessed for NGSO—Small Satellites from each category. These allocated fees are then divided equally among the number of units in each category. For fiscal year 2024, fee payors in the NGSO—Other fee category were assessed fees of $964,200 per unit, regardless of the number of space stations authorized for each fee payor. Payors in the NGSO—Less Complex fee category were assessed per unit fees of $441,925, also regardless of the number of space stations authorized for each fee payor. NGSO space station payors have previously argued that this “one fee fits all” assessment is unfair, as it assesses the same regulatory fee on an NGSO system consisting of 100 space stations as the fee assessed for an NGSO system consisting of potentially 10,000 or more space stations.
41. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM sought comment on two proposals to address this shortcoming. First, it sought comment on a proposal to create sub-categories within the existing NGSO—Other fee category for small and large constellations of NGSO space stations, based on the number of authorized space stations in a system. Second, it sought comment on whether to eliminate the existing NGSO—Less Complex fee category and assess fees on all NGSO space stations (other than small satellites) as small or large constellations or, alternatively, to create sub-categories of small and large constellations within the NGSO—Less Complex category.
42. The Commission finds that the overarching goals of making its regulatory fee structure fair, administrable, and sustainable would be met by assessing regulatory fees on all NGSO space stations (other than those eligible for paying regulatory fees under the small satellites category) within new fee categories of NGSO—Small Constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and NGSO—Large Constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more) and by eliminating the NGSO—Less Complex category entirely. Furthermore, the Commission will allocate fees between small and large constellations on a 60/40 basis, that is, 60% of NGSO space station fees would be allocated to small constellations and 40% to large constellations. As with its existing approach, the Commission will subtract small satellite fees on a pro rata basis between small and large constellations.
43. First, the new methodology is fair because creation of separate fee categories for small and large constellations recognizes that NGSO space station constellations with more authorized space stations are likely to benefit more from the Commission's licensing and regulatory efforts than constellations with substantially fewer authorized space stations. NGSO systems with a larger number of authorized space stations provide service in a larger geographic area (usually globally) and provide more transmission capacity in order to provide higher-data rate, two-way connectivity. In addition, a larger number of earth stations are needed to support global, high-data rate two-way connectivity, and larger spectrum authorizations are required to provide the spectrum bandwidth needed for the desired services. The Commission finds it reasonable that such constellations benefit more from FTE burdens than smaller constellations and should be assessed greater regulatory fees, per unit.
44. The adoption of fee categories for small and large constellations also ensures that the additional benefit received by large NGSO constellations is not linearly related to the number of authorized space stations. This new methodology will account for diminishing amounts of FTE burdens required to license and regulate these systems as the number of authorized space stations grows beyond a certain size. In the Commission's experience, the Commission finds that once an operator has 1000 or more authorized space stations, it is reasonably distinguishable from smaller constellations in terms of the FTE benefits received and can be separated into a category with similar systems for regulatory fee purposes. Once it is in this separate category, the regulatory fees will not increase further based on the number of authorized space stations. Thus, the Commission will mitigate the adoption of exceptionally high fees for any one particular fee payor when such fees may not correlate reasonably to the FTE benefits accrued. The majority of commenters also support the division between small and large constellations at 1000 or more authorized space stations.
45. Second, the Commission finds that this methodology is administrable. Using the number of authorized space stations in an NGSO system to allocate FTE burdens is simpler than the current system of using complexity as a proxy for FTE burdens. The number of space stations authorized for a NGSO system is an objective measure and is readily available as part of the space station license or grant of market access. The Commission finds this is a more administrable metric than space station features such as mass that could rely on data that may not be required by, or contained in, its licensing processes, or that require a multi-element accounting system, without a clear correlation between such feature and FTE burdens.
46. This new methodology will also lessen the probability of sudden or unpredictable swings in the number of units within the fee category. Using the number of authorized space stations will help avoid unpredictable and rapid shifts in fee rates from one year to the next, and is consistent with prior Commission use of this metric as the basis for its regulatory fees. Also, by eliminating the separate fee category for NGSO—Less Complex, all NGSO space stations (other than small satellites) will be placed into two tiers, which will result in a greater number of fee payors per tier. In turn, this lessens the potential for rapid and unpredictable changes in fees from year to year when a single fee payor in each tier is added or removed. In contrast, use of more than two fee tiers to account for more granular distinctions in the size of NGSO space station systems would be susceptible to rapid shifts in regulatory fees for all space station payors if there is a significant reduction in the number of authorized GSO space stations from one year to the next because the number of authorized GSO space stations accounts for a large percentage of total units. This would also require a comparison of the FTE burdens for each tier with those required for a single GSO space station.
47. Third, the Commission finds that the amended methodology adopted in the Order is sustainable because the fee system will have flexibility to adapt to changes in technologies. Notably, the amended methodology is not defined by technology or services provided, but rather solely by the number of authorized space stations in an NGSO system. If technologies and the space industry change, as the Commission expects that they will, the number of authorized space stations in an NGSO system is a broad metric for assessing FTE burdens and is likely to remain relevant. In the event that further amendments are needed to adjust the methodology to changes in technologies, the methodology adopted in the Order preserves the ability to do so.
48. The Commission also finds that allocating a larger share to small constellations on a 60/40 basis between small and large constellations, respectively, is appropriate at this time and particularly sustainable as it relates to smaller constellations. Currently, there are substantially more small NGSO constellations than large NGSO constellations—an estimated 24 NGSO small constellations as compared to three NGSO large constellations. Going forward, the Commission anticipates that there will be greater growth in the number of authorized small constellations due to the considerable additional resources needed to launch and operate NGSO systems with a thousand or more space stations. Given this disparity in numbers, the Commission finds that it is reasonable that more than half of the FTE benefits realized by NGSO space station systems at this time are attributable to small constellations, in aggregate. The 60/40 split should result in much lower regulatory fees for small constellations on a per unit basis compared with large constellations, while also recognizing that small constellations currently take up more than 50% of the FTE burdens used for the licensing and regulation of NGSO space stations.
49. The Commission makes one additional amendment to the methodology used to assess space station regulatory fees necessitated by the amendments adopted in the Order: instead of subtracting the amount of regulatory fees anticipated to be collected from small satellites on a pro rata basis between NGSO—Less Complex and NGSO—Other, the Commission will instead subtract small satellite fees on a pro rata basis between small and large constellations. This maintains the existing approach, but makes changes to reflect the elimination of the NGSO—Less Complex fee category and creation of the NGSO small and large constellation fee categories.
50. The Commission clarifies that fees will be assessed based on the total number of authorized space stations for an NGSO system, not just the number of space stations authorized to be simultaneously operating. Comments observe that the appendices in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM listed the number of authorized space stations for some systems based on the total number of space stations authorized over the license term, whereas for some systems the number was based on the total number of simultaneously-operating space stations that were authorized. Comments urge consistency in determining which space stations are authorized for regulatory fee purposes and advocate calculating fees based on the number of space stations authorized to be operational simultaneously, rather than authorized over the license term.
51. Although the Commission finds that this distinction is less relevant under the methodology adopted in the Order than under the alternative methodology that the Commission is not adopting, the Commission clarifies that fees will be assessed based on the total number of authorized space stations for an NGSO system, not just the number of space stations authorized to be simultaneously operating. The methodology adopted no longer relies on operational status of a space station for assessing regulatory fees, so it would be inconsistent to use operational status, rather than authorized status, as a basis for assessing regulatory fees. Although comments stress that assessing fees solely on space stations that are authorized to be simultaneously-operating would be consistent with the Commission's decision not to assess regulatory fees on on-orbit spares or co-located space stations that were not considered to be separably operable, such space stations are subject to regulatory fees under the amended methodology adopted. Furthermore, the Commission does not find that the record supports contentions that it is solely the operational status of the space stations that goes into assessing the FTE burdens attributable to the category of regulatory fees. As observed above, its regulatory fees are intended to recover the costs of licensing and regulation before, during, and after operations, so limiting regulatory fees to operational stations does not best serve the purpose of section 9 of the Act.
52. The Commission finds that alternative proposals for assessing regulatory fees on NGSO space stations are more complicated to administer than the methodology the Commission adopts in the Order. The Commission declines to assess regulatory fees based on the number of authorizations that a fee payor holds. Such a methodology would be more complex to administer than the one the Commission adopts, and the record lacks specifics as to how to implement such a system. The Commission also declines to adopt a “risk-informed” methodology, which would inject policy decisions regarding the regulation of space stations that are not suitable for resolution in regulatory fee proceedings to assess regulatory fees.
53. The Commission finds that the goals of this proceeding are best served by adopting, at this time, two categories for NGSO space stations, small and large constellations, based on a dividing line of 1000 authorized space stations, rather than multiple categories based on different numbers of authorized space stations, as suggested by some comments. Adopting more than two tiers or categories of NGSO space station fees based on alternative number of authorized space stations is less administrable than the amended methodology the Commission adopts. Dividing NGSO space station systems into many tiers will result in a smaller number of fee payors per tier, which in turn has the potential to result in rapid and unpredictable changes in fees from year to year, if a single fee payor in each tier is added or removed. Simply put, having fee categories with larger number of units per categories is more administrable, all things being equal, as a single dividing line is less complex to administer and is likely to be more stable over time. The majority of comments support this approach, at least in the event that the alternative methodology is not adopted.
54. The Commission also declines at this time to adopt a fee category for “truly small” NGSO systems with “well under” 100 authorized space stations. Although comments argue that their systems are closer in kind to NGSO systems authorized under the Commission's small satellite rules and should be assessed much lower regulatory fee comparable to those assessed to those systems, the Commission observes that the lower regulatory fees assessed for small satellites is based on their ability to meet certain criteria for their system, which permits streamlined processing of these applications and requires fewer FTE burdens to license and regulate such systems. This is not the case for all NGSO systems, however, even if the total number of authorized space stations in their systems is close to the ten or fewer space stations permitted to be authorized under a small satellite authorization. Accordingly, the Commission does not find that the record, at this time, supports a finding that creating new fee categories for NGSO space stations achieves its goals better than the small and large constellation categories that the Commission adopts. In addition, the Commission dismisses calls to revisit and revise the Commission's prior decision to allocate regulatory fees between GSO and NGSO space stations on a 60/40 basis, rather than the prior 80/20 basis, because they are outside the scope of proposals for which comment was sought in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM and they raise no new arguments that have not already been fully considered and rejected by the Commission.

E. Adoption for Fiscal Year 2025
55. The Commission adopts the amendments to its methodology for assessing space and earth station regulatory fees in time for them to be effective for fiscal year 2025. Comments widely support making the changes effective immediately, given the notice of the intended changes since early 2024 and the increased fairness and administrability of the amended methodology. The Commission declines to postpone until fiscal year 2026 the assessment of regulatory fees on GSO space stations that were considered to be non-operational and not previously subject to regulatory fees, as proposed by one commenter. Although it is argued that additional time is needed for fee payors to plan for such fees and to allow them to assess whether to deactivate non-operational space stations at an earlier date than planned, the Commission finds that there has been ample time for fee payors to plan for the possibility of such fees and to take actions in anticipation of such fees. Accordingly, the Commission will immediately provide notice to Congress of these amendments pursuant to section 9 of the Act so that they can become effective after 90 days.

F. Earth Station Regulatory Fees
56. The Commission declines to create additional subcategories of earth station regulatory fees at this time. Both the notice of proposed rulemaking and the further notice in this proceeding sought comment on whether the creation of additional earth station fee categories was feasible and whether additional fee categories would better differentiate the amount of regulatory fee burdens with different types of earth station licenses. The Commission determines that the record does not support creation of additional categories of earth station regulatory fees at this time.
57. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM sought comment on the question of whether to create subcategories of earth station regulatory fee payors, in addition to the existing single category of “Transmit/Receive & Transmit Only (per authorization or registration).” As examples, the Commission asked if the former distinct fee categories for Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSAT), Mobile-Satellite Earth Stations, and Fixed Earth Stations should be reinstated. Comments in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM expressed doubt that the creation of subcategories of earth stations with differing fee amounts is feasible and urged that the record be further developed before creating subcategories of earth station regulatory fees. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM sought further comment on these issues, particularly whether there are certain types of earth station licenses that require more FTE burdens to license and regulate, for which a higher regulatory fee should be assessed?
58. The record continues to be insufficient to determine that the creation of additional categories of earth station regulatory fees at this time is either necessary or feasible. The majority of comments continue to oppose the creation of additional earth station regulatory fee categories as difficult to administer fairly or efficiently, and having limited utility given the relatively small variation in fees any changes would produce. Although some comments suggest the possibility of creating a separate fee category for blanket licensed earth stations, the record is not sufficiently developed as to which earth stations would be included in this category since there are many different types of earth stations that can be authorized under blanket licenses, such as earth stations in motion (ESIMS), mobile-satellite service earth stations, and fixed-satellite service VSAT networks. Furthermore, at this time and based on the record before us, the Commission is not able to attribute with any degree of reasonableness the allocation of FTE burdens attributable to blanket earth stations, either by individual service type or collectively, compared to non-blanket licensed stations. It may be possible to do so with a more complete record, but the Commission is not able to do so for fiscal year 2025 and declines to do so now.
59. The Commission also declines to assess regulatory fees on registered receive-only earth stations, which currently are not assessed regulatory fees. The registration of receive-only earth stations is not an authorization, but rather a database entry to record the existence of an earth station that is entitled to protection from interference under rules adopted for other services. The Commission's experience is that such registrations typically require few, if any, FTE burdens to process or regulate, and therefore it is unnecessary to re-create a separate regulatory fee category for such stations.

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
60. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
61. The Commission is required by Congress pursuant to section 9 of the Act to assess and collect regulatory fees each year to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission's oversight and regulatory activities in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its annual appropriation. As part of last year's adoption of regulatory fees, the Commission noted that FY 2023 would be the last year where the Commission will do so for the International Bureau, given the creation of the Space Bureau, and Office of International Affairs. The Commission also noted that an examination of the regulatory fees, and categories for NGSO space stations would be useful in light of changes resulting from the creation of the Space Bureau, and as part of a more holistic review of the FTE burden of the Space Bureau in FY 2024. In FY 2024, the Commission took certain steps to revise regulatory fees for space and earth station payors, but also determined that further consideration, as part of a future notice of proposed rulemaking, would be beneficial. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM continued the Commission's examination and review of regulatory fees for space and earth station payors regulated by the new Space Bureau, specifically seeking comment on a range of proposed changes to the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth stations remaining from the FY 2024 Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM. The Commission examined and sought comment on assessing regulatory fees on authorized, but not operational space and earth stations; using an alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees; establishing tiers with sub-categories for small and large constellations of NGSO space stations within the existing Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Other fee category based on the number of authorized space stations in the NGSO system; and creating new sub-categories of earth station regulatory fees.
62. The goal of these proposals is to update the regulatory fees and categories for earth and space stations in light of changes resulting from the creation of the Space Bureau and as part of a more holistic review of the regulatory fees for earth and space stations. The Commission also sought to implement changes to make regulatory fees more equitable, administratively manageable, sustainable, and to provide the Commission flexibility to evolve and make adjustments as the space industry continues to evolve.
63. In the Order, the Commission takes steps towards these goals by adopting changes to assess regulatory fees on stations once they are authorized, instead of the current process of assessing regulatory fees when the stations are certified to be operational. The Commission also splits existing regulatory fee categories for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) into two new fee categories: small constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and large constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more) to better distinguish between space station regulatees and to more accurately apportion fee burdens among them. This delineation should result in lower per unit regulatory fees for the majority of small and other space station fee payors compared to fiscal year 2024. Additionally, the Commission adopts a fee assessment approach that broadens the base of regulatory fee payors to better align fees with the benefits of regulation and that is less subjective than the current system that allocates fees based on the estimated “complexity” of an NGSO system.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
64. No comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed rules on small entities.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
65. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply
66. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as under the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.” A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
67. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses.
68. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
69. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”
70. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS is included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry which comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.
71. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under the SBA small business size standard. According to Commission data however, only two entities provide DBS service—DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for operation. DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for classification as a small business. Therefore, the Commission must conclude based on internally developed Commission data, in general DBS service is provided only by large firms.
72. Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has $44 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there was a total of 275 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard most fixed satellite small transmit/receive earth stations can be considered small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the Commission does not request nor collect annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the number of fixed satellite small transmit/receive earth stations that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.
73. Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems. A VSAT is a relatively small satellite antenna used for satellite-based point-to-multipoint data communications applications. VSAT networks provide support for credit verification, transaction authorization, and billing and inventory management. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has $44 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were a total of 275 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Thus, for this industry under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) System licensees are small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the Commission does not request nor collect annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the number of Fixed Satellite VSAT System licenses that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.
74. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers and involves the home reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls within the industry category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
75. Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard classifies a business with $44 million or less in annual receipts as small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 275 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Thus, for this industry under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Mobile Satellite Earth Station licensees are small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, based on Commission data as of February 1, 2024, there were 16 Mobile Satellite Earth Stations licensees. The Commission does not request nor collect annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to estimate the number of Mobile Satellite Earth Station licensees that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.
76. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers' industry which includes wireline telecommunications businesses. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
77. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with $44 million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard most satellite telecommunications service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.
78. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services ( e.g. dial-up ISPs) or VoIP services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small.

E. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
79. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
80. The Order does not adopt any changes to the Commission's current reporting or recordkeeping requirements for small entities. The Order does however adopt changes to the regulatory fee payment structure applicable to small and other stations that subjects a licensee or grantee to fee payment obligations when the license or grant of market access is received from the Commission. As a result, a small licensee or grantee will be subject to regulatory fee payment requirements sooner. In addition, the broadened base of regulatory fee payors which recovers fees from all licensees who benefit from the Space Bureau's licensing and regulatory activities should lower the per unit regulatory fee burden by increasing the number of units on which fees are assessed and may result in reduced fees for some small entities.
81. There could also be a positive economic impact for small entities from Commission's eliminations of the existing regulatory fee categories for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) and creation of a distinct fee category for small constellations having less than 1000 authorized space stations which the Commission believes appropriately apportion fees commensurate with Space Bureau resources attributable to regulating these licensees and grantees, and will remove the “one-fee fits all” assessment commenters considered unfair. Further, the Commission finds it reasonable that larger constellations that benefit more from the use of Commission resources than smaller constellations, should be assessed greater regulatory fees, per unit. Lastly, consistent with the Commission's objective of revising the current regulatory fee structure to be more fair, administrable, and sustainable, small entities will be impacted by its adoption of regulatory fees on all NGSO space stations (other than those eligible for paying regulatory fees under the small satellites category) within new fee categories of NGSO—Small Constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and NGSO—Large Constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more) and by eliminating the NGSO—Less Complex category entirely. Fees between small and large NGSO constellations will be apportioned on a 60/40 basis, with 60% of NGSO space station fees allocated to small constellations and 40% to large constellations. Consistent with the Commission's existing approach small satellite fees will be deducted on a pro rata basis between small and large constellations.
82. The Commission considered a proposal from the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM to assess regulatory fees in instances where there are separately identifiable space station authorizations, but which the space stations have not been considered to be separably operational and therefore have not been subject to separate regulatory fees under Commission rules. While a single regulatory fee might make sense if regulatory fees were intended to recover solely the FTE burdens associated with regulatory oversight of satellite's operations, section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to recover all aspects of its licensing and regulatory functions—before, during, and after authorization. Thus, where there are separate station authorizations for a single satellite, evidenced by separate call signs, the Commission finds it is more in line with Congress's intent to assess separate regulatory fees to recover the separate FTE burdens associated with each authorization, which could impact small entities.
83. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM also sought comment on whether regulatory fees should be assessed on small and other GSO space stations that are co-located with other GSO space stations or that serve as non-operational “on-orbit spares” for other operational GSO space stations. Finding that the goals of section 9 of the Communications Act are not served by continuing to exclude space stations from regulatory fees simply because they are co-located with other operational space stations or serve as on-orbit spares to other operational space stations, the Commission will now assess regulatory fees on small and other GSO space stations co-located with other GSO space station. The premise that underlies exclusion in both instances is that the space stations were not considered to be separately operational, but the Commission has determined that operational status is no longer the appropriate basis for determining whether to assess regulatory fees. As is the case for stations with multiple authorizations, a single regulatory fee would make sense if regulatory fees were intended to recover solely the regulatory oversight of satellite's operations, but section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to recover all aspects of licensing and regulatory functions—before, during, and after authorization. In the case of co-located or on-orbit spare space stations, the amount of FTE burdens required to license these space stations does not appear to be substantially different from that required to license other space stations, since staff must still evaluate the applications to determine compliance with the Commission's rules and policies, and such space stations receive licenses that confer benefits to the licensees.
84. Small and other regulated entities are required to pay regulatory fees on an annual basis. The cost of compliance with the annual regulatory assessment for small entities is the amount assessed for their regulatory fee category based on the rules adopted in the Order and should not require small entities to hire professionals to comply.
85. The regulatory fees resulting from the Order will be payable in FY 2025, and small entities that qualify can take advantage of the exemption from payment of regulatory fees allowed under the de minimis threshold. Under the Commission's rules, small and other entities may request a waiver, reduction, and/or deferral of their regulatory fees. The waiver process provides smaller entities that may not be familiar with the Commission's procedural filing rules an easier filing process than their larger counterparts.

F. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
86. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities. . .including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”
87. In the Order, the Commission considered but declined to adopt an alternative methodology with a tiered structure for assessing space station regulatory fees that eliminates the distinction between GSO, NGSO, and all the subcategories of NGSO, while preserving a separate fee category for small satellites, in favor of the proposal in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM to assess regulatory fees on stations under the existing methodology once they are authorized, versus when the stations are certified to be operational. While there may have been some been some benefit to small entities with the tiered approach alternative methodology, a fee structure that allocates payment obligations in proportion to the use of Commission resources associated with of oversight of licensees, and grantees, and broadening the base of regulatory fee payors thereby spreading the recovery of fees from all licensees who benefit from the Space Bureau's licensing and regulatory activities, better achieves the Commission's compliance with the objectives of section 9 of the Act. The impact for small entities is potentially reduced since lowering the per unit regulatory fee burden by increasing the number of units on which fees are assessed allows benefits to accrue to all space and earth station licensees. Comments in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM strongly support assessing regulatory fees when space and earth stations are authorized, rather than when they are operational. In addition, the record did not provide a sufficient basis for assessing a separate, lower fee for stations that are authorized, but not yet operational. The Commission also considered but declined to adopt an approach that would exclude assessment of fees on small and other space stations that are authorized solely for TT&C operations. While fee assessment on such space stations has the potential to impose costs and create financial risk for these space station fee payors, the Commission determined that these concerns do not outweigh the need to assess regulatory fees on regulatees of the same class who benefit from FTE burdens. TT&C communications are still radiocommunications authorized by the Commission and they are subject to regulatory oversight by the Commission. Significant FTE burdens are involved with the licensing of stations, even before a station becomes operational, and staff expertise is utilized by the industry before, during, and after an application (including modifications thereof) are filed. This also applies to space and earth stations that are used solely for TT&C. Thus, the Commission determined at this time that there is insufficient basis to find that regulatory fees should not be assessed on TT&C-only space stations. The Commission expects, however, to reexamine in a future proceeding whether it is feasible to ascertain whether fewer FTE burdens can be reasonably ascribed to the licensing and regulatory oversight of space stations authorized solely for TT&C communications, so that a new, separate fee category might be able to be created for such stations.
88. As discussed in the section E above, the two new fee categories, “Space Stations (Non-geostationary orbit)—Small Constellations (fewer than 1,000 authorized space stations)” and “Space Stations (Non-geostationary orbit)—Large Constellations (1,000 or more authorized space stations),” will likely benefit small entities. By eliminating the separate fee category for “Less Complex” space stations, all non-geostationary orbit space stations (other than small satellites) will be placed into two tiers, which will result in a greater number of fee payors per tier. In turn, the probability of sudden or unpredictable swings in the number of units within the fee category will be decreased, as well as the potential for rapid and unpredictable changes in fees from year to year when a single fee payor in each tier is added or removed. These new space station categorizations are reasonable and fair because creation of separate fee categories for small and large constellations recognizes that non-geostationary orbit space station constellations with more authorized space stations are likely to benefit more from the Commission's licensing and regulatory efforts than constellations with substantially fewer authorized space stations. Further, using the number of authorized space stations in an non-geostationary orbit satellite system to allocate FTE burdens is simpler than the current system of using complexity as a proxy for FTE burdens.
89. Acutely aware of the financial impact of regulatory fees, particularly on smaller and less capitalized space companies, the Commission retained the existing regulatory fees methodology with targeted modifications rather than adopting a completely different alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees.
90. The Commission is presently focused on reducing the total fee burden to be divided among regulated entities by making the Space Bureau's operations more efficient. It finds that continued use of the existing methodology will maintain stability and prevent unnecessary disruption while broader reforms are ongoing. At the same time, targeted changes to the existing methodology will substantially reduce the fee burden for a large class of payors. Accordingly, the Commission finds that now is not the time to adopt a wholly new methodology for space station regulatory fees. Rather, the overarching goals of fair, administrable, and sustainable regulatory fees can equally be achieved by targeted changes to the existing methodology. The Commission observes that the changes in the space industry that led to the creation of the Space Bureau and the Commission's re-examination of space and earth station regulatory fees are still ongoing. Any wholesale departure from the existing methodology at this juncture runs significant the risk of adopting a new fee methodology that still reflects past assumptions about licensing and regulation of space and earth stations. Comments agree that the Commission should not undertake a major overhaul of its space and earth station regulatory fee methodologies in light of the ongoing modernization efforts.
91. Finally, in light of an insufficient record to determine that the creation of additional categories of earth station regulatory fees at this time is either necessary or feasible, the Commission considered but declined to adopt new categories of regulatory fees for earth stations. The majority of comments continue to oppose the creation of additional earth station regulatory fee categories as difficult to administer fairly or efficiently, and having limited utility given the relatively small variation in fees any changes would produce. On the other hand although there are some comments that suggest the possibility of creating a separate fee category for blanket licensed earth stations, the record is not sufficiently developed as to which earth stations would be included in this category since there are many different types of earth stations that can be authorized under blanket licenses, such as earth stations in motion, mobile-satellite service earth stations, and fixed-satellite service VSAT networks. Furthermore, at this time and based on the record, the Commission is not able to attribute with any degree of reasonableness the allocation of FTE burdens to blanket earth stations, either by individual service type or collectively, compared to non-blanket licensed stations.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,

Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
48 CFR Chapter 9
RIN 1991-AC17
Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation

AGENCY:
Department of Energy.

ACTION:
Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing this technical amendment to reinstate text that was deleted from the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) in error when the DEAR was revised through a final rule in November 2024, and effective December 13, 2024. The deleted text was adopted through previous rulemakings, and because the text is still applicable to the DEAR, this technical amendment is necessary to ensure the regulation in its entirety is reported in the Code of Federal Regulations. By reinstating this text, the regulation on access to and ownership of records will clearly state which records are considered contractor-owned records.

DATES:
The effective date of this technical amendment is July 7, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jason Passaro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Management, Office of Acquisition Management (MA-61), 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 364-4062. Email: jason.passaro@hq.doe.gov.
Ms. Ani Esenyan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building (GC-33), 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email: ani.esenyan@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
On November 13, 2024, DOE published a final rule that comprehensively revised its Acquisition Regulation in order to update and streamline the policies, procedures, provisions and clauses that are applicable to DOE's contracts (“November 2024 Final Rule”). 89 FR 89720. The rulemaking updated or eliminated coverage that is obsolete or that unnecessarily duplicates the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and retained only that coverage which either implements or supplements the FAR for the award and administration of the DOE's contracts. The rule added several new clauses and amended several existing clauses in order to promote more uniform application of the DOE's contract award and administration policies.

II. Need for Correction
The November 2024 Final Rule in error provided amendatory instructions which resulted in deletion of text from 48 CFR 970.5204-3(b) that was not intended to be removed through the rulemaking. The deleted text, 48 CFR 970.5204-3(b)(2)-(5), was initially adopted in 2005 (70 FR 37016) and amended in 2009 (74 FR 36374) and 2014 (79 FR 56285). Through this technical amendment, DOE is reinstating 48 CFR 970.5204-3(b)(2)-(5) as adopted in the 2014 rulemaking as the November 2024 Final Rule never intended to remove this text from the regulations. Without reinstating this text, the records that are deemed contractor-owned records significantly decrease. It would leave open to interpretation whether these types of records would be Federal records subject to Federal records management requirements, as opposed to contractor-owned records. This technical amendment is necessary to ensure that regulation in its entirety is reported in the Code of Federal Regulations.

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), DOE finds that there is good cause not to issue a separate notice to solicit public comment on the change made by this rule. This rule reinstates language that was removed in error. Additionally, the reinstated language was adopted pursuant to notice-and-comment and no changes have been made to the reinstated language in this rule. Therefore, issuing a separate notice to solicit public comment is unnecessary and serves no useful purpose.
As such, this rule is not subject to the 30-day delay in effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) otherwise applicable to rules that make substantive changes.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule; technical amendment.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 970
Accounting, Classified information, Drug abuse, Government procurement, Insurance, Labor, Minority businesses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Surety bonds, Taxes, Whistleblowing, Women.

Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 30, 2025, by William J. Quigley, Deputy Associate Administrator, Partnership and Acquisition Services, National Nuclear Security Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, and Janella Davis, Acting Director, Office of Acquisition Management, Department of Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. These documents with the original signature and date are maintained by DOE/NNSA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2025.
Treena V. Garrett,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 970 of chapter 9 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 970—DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS
1. The authority citation for part 970 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282a; 2282b; 2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.
2. Amend section 970.5204-3 by revising paragraph (b) of the clause to read as follows:
§ 970.5204-3
Access to and ownership of records.
* * * * *
(b) Contractor-owned records. The following records are considered the property of the contractor and are not within the scope of paragraph (a) of this clause.
(1) Employment-related records (such as worker's compensation files; employee relations records, records on salary and employee benefits; drug testing records, labor negotiation records; records on ethics, employee concerns; records generated during the course of responding to allegations of research misconduct; records generated during other employee related investigations conducted under an expectation of confidentiality; employee assistance program records; and personnel and medical/health-related records and similar files), and non-employee patient medical/health-related records, except those records described by the contract as being operated and maintained by the Contractor in Privacy Act system of records.
(2) Confidential contractor financial information, internal corporate governance records and correspondence between the contractor and other segments of the contractor located away from the DOE facility ( i.e., the contractor's corporate headquarters);
(3) Records relating to any procurement action by the contractor, except for records that under 48 CFR 970.5232-3 are described as the property of the Government; and
(4) Legal records, including legal opinions, litigation files, and documents covered by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges; and
(5) The following categories of records maintained pursuant to the technology transfer clause of this contract:
(i) Executed license agreements, including exhibits or appendices containing information on royalties, royalty rates, other financial information, or commercialization plans, and all related documents, notes and correspondence.
(ii) The contractor's protected Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) information and appendices to a CRADA that contain licensing terms and conditions, or royalty or royalty rate information.
(iii) Patent, copyright, mask work, and trademark application files and related contractor invention disclosures, documents and correspondence, where the contractor has elected rights or has permission to assert rights and has not relinquished such rights or turned such rights over to the Government.
* * * * *
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 300 and 679
[Docket No. 250630-0116]
RIN 0648-BN18
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Halibut Recreational Quota Entity Program Fee Collection

AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:
Final rule.

SUMMARY:
This final rule authorizes fee collection for the Recreational Quota Entity (RQE) Program. A charter halibut stamp (stamp) is required under this final rule for every charter vessel angler, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, who intends to catch and retain halibut on a charter vessel in International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) regulatory areas 2C in Southeast Alaska and 3A in South Central Alaska. Persons who hold charter halibut permits (CHPs) must purchase electronic stamps from NMFS. Charter vessel guides are required to validate a stamp for each adult charter vessel angler intending to catch and retain halibut on a charter vessel fishing trip. This final rule is necessary to promote stability and economic viability in the charter halibut fishery and is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), and other applicable laws.

DATES:
This rule is effective on January 1, 2026.

ADDRESSES:
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and the Categorical Exclusion (CE) prepared for this action are available at: https://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region website.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to NMFS at the Alaska Region website and at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doug Duncan, 907-586-7228, doug.duncan@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This final rule authorizes an RQE Program fee collection. NMFS published the proposed rule in the Federal Register to authorize an RQE Program fee collection on October 31, 2024 (89 FR 86772). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on December 2, 2024. NMFS received 129 comment letters on the proposed rule. NMFS considered all comments submitted on or before December 2, 2024 in the development of this final rule. A summary of the comments and NMFS' responses are provided in the Comments and Responses section of this preamble. All public comment letters submitted during the comment period may be obtained at: https://www.regulations.gov. A detailed review of the rationale for these regulations is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (89 FR 86772, October 31, 2024).
Due to the complications of implementing this RQE fee collection program mid-season, this final rule will be effective on January 1, 2026.

Authority for Action
In December 2022, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328), the U.S. Congress (Congress) enacted the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act (Act). Public Law 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459, 5260-61 (Dec. 29, 2022). Section 106 of the Act authorizes the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to recommend, and the Secretary of Commerce to approve, “regulations necessary for the collection of fees from charter vessel operators who guide recreational anglers who retain Pacific halibut in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A.” Under the section 106 of the Act, any fees collected shall be available for financing administrative costs of the RQE Program; the purchase of halibut Quota Share (QS) in areas 2C and 3A by the RQE; halibut conservation and research; and promotion of the halibut resource by the RQE. This final rule implements section 106 of the Act.
The IPHC and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut (halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis ) through regulations established under authority of the Halibut Act. The IPHC adopts regulations governing the halibut fishery under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). For the United States, regulations developed by the IPHC are subject to acceptance by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce. After acceptance by the Secretary of State and concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS publishes notice of the efficacy of the IPHC regulations in the Federal Register . On March 18, 2024, NMFS published the IPHC regulations for the 2024 fishing year ( i.e., 0001 hours, Alaska local time, on January 1, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time, on December 31). IPHC regulations affecting sport fishing for halibut and vessels in the charter halibut fishery in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A may be found in that final rule (89 FR 19275, March 18, 2024).
Section 5 of the Halibut Act provides the Secretary of Commerce with general responsibility to carry out the Convention and the Halibut Act. In adopting regulations that may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and the Halibut Act, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to consult with the Secretary of the department in which the U.S. Coast Guard is operating, which is currently the Department of Homeland Security.
Section 5 of the Halibut Act also provides the Council with authority to develop regulations for waters off Alaska, including limited access regulations that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. Regulations developed by the Council may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Council exercised this authority in the development of halibut fishery management measures, codified at 50 CFR 300.65 through 300.67 and 50 CFR part 600. The Council also developed the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for the commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries, codified at 50 CFR part 679. Management of halibut in the IFQ Program is authorized under section 5 of the Halibut Act.

Background

Summary Background on Management of the Charter Halibut Fishery
The proposed rule for this action provides a comprehensive history of management of the guided sport fishery for halibut off Alaska (also referred to herein as the “charter fishery”) (89 FR 86772, October 31, 2024). The proposed rule also provides detailed background on the commercial halibut and sablefish IFQ Program and how the IFQ Program intersects with management of the charter fishery, primarily through the Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) that establishes allocations of halibut between the commercial halibut IFQ and charter sectors.
The proposed rule describes the history and development of annual management measures for the charter fishery, including the current annual management processes. The proposed rule also provides a summary of the development of the Charter Halibut Limited Access Program that established CHPs and provides details on the Guided Angler Fish (GAF) Program and the RQE Program. The proposed rule also describes the Military Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) and Community Quota Entity (CQE) programs that issue military charter halibut permits and community charter halibut permits that are also subject to the same annual management measures and many of the same regulations as other CHP holders. The RQE Program fee collection and associated stamp apply to the MWR and CQE.

Recreational Quota Entity (RQE) Program
This action implements regulations that focus on the already established RQE Program. The RQE Program was implemented in 2018 as part of the IFQ Program in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. More details on the RQE Program are provided in the proposed rule (82 FR 46016, October 3, 2017) and final rule (83 FR 47819, September 21, 2018).
The program allows the RQE designated by NMFS to purchase and hold a limited amount of commercial halibut QS that would yield pounds of Recreational Fishing Quota (RFQ). RFQ is the pounds of halibut issued to an RQE on an annual basis to supplement the amount of halibut allocated to the charter halibut fishery (83 FR 47819, September 21, 2018). The RQE Program therefore provides a mechanism for the RQE to purchase a portion of commercial halibut QS for use by the charter fishery, which may result in less restrictive annual management measures for the charter fishery or help maintain existing management measures if there are continued reductions in halibut abundance.
In March 2020, NMFS approved the application of the Catch Accounting Through Compensated Halibut (CATCH) Association to serve as the RQE. CATCH is currently eligible to purchase and permanently hold halibut QS, but, to date, CATCH has not purchased any halibut QS, as there was previously no funding mechanism in place.

Guided Angler Fish (GAF) Program
As part of the 2014 CSP, NMFS implemented the GAF Program to authorize limited annual transfers of commercial halibut IFQ as GAF to qualified individual CHP holders. The GAF Program is described in more detail in the proposed rule for the CSP (78 FR 39122, June 28, 2013).
To use GAF, qualified CHP holders seek a GAF permit from NMFS, which authorizes them to lease commercial halibut IFQ for the purpose of offering charter vessel anglers the opportunity to retain halibut up to the limit for unguided anglers. For example, if charter management regulations in IPHC regulatory area 2C restrict charter vessel anglers to a 1-halibut daily bag limit, a charter vessel angler could use GAF to retain a second halibut, bringing the angler's total retained amount to 2 halibut—the same daily bag limit that applies to unguided anglers. Similarly, GAF also allows charter vessel anglers to retain halibut on days that are otherwise closed to halibut retention by charter vessel anglers by the annual management measures published pursuant to § 300.62.
NMFS issues GAF in whole numbers of halibut to individual CHP holders with GAF permits based on a conversion factor from IFQ pounds. Conversion factors are based on the average net weights of GAF retained in the applicable IPHC regulatory area during the previous year. The GAF Program has restrictions on transfers and use of GAF that are intended to prevent a particular individual, corporation, or other entity from acquiring an excessive share of halibut fishing privileges as GAF.

Final Rule

Summary of the Final Rule
Starting January 1, 2026, this final rule requires CHP holders to purchase an electronic stamp for $20 each for all charter vessel anglers, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut on a charter vessel fishing trip in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. However, this stamp requirement does not apply if a charter vessel angler retains halibut as GAF on days that are otherwise closed to halibut retention by the annual management measures published pursuant to § 300.62.
NMFS will transfer the collected stamp fees to a specific fund in the Federal Treasury, currently referred to as the RQE Fund, which has been created by Congress. From this account, Congress may make the money available to NMFS, to be used for the four purposes as specified in the Act and described above. For the promotion of the halibut resource and the purchase of IFQ shares in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A, NMFS intends to issue funds to the RQE through periodic grants. Congress also authorized NMFS to use monies collected from this fee program to pay for RQE Program administrative costs and to support halibut conservation and research.

Charter Halibut Permit Holders Purchase Stamps
This final rule requires that CHP holders obtain the stamps from NMFS and pay applicable fees for all stamps validated for their CHP in a given fishing year. All CHP holders are subject to these regulations, including CQEs and MWR programs holding any type of CHP. A CHP holder may log in to their CHP holder eFISH account to purchase stamps at any time and in any quantity. After the CHP holder purchases stamps, they are held in secure, individual CHP holder accounts within eFISH that are maintained by NMFS, as discussed below in the “Charter Halibut Permit Holder Accounts” section. Stamps reside in the account indefinitely until a charter vessel guide, as defined at § 300.61, using the CHP debits ( i.e., uses) the stamp by the stamp validation process discussed below under “Charter Halibut Stamp Validation.” CHP holders commonly lease their CHPs. As such, the charter vessel guide who leases, or otherwise uses the CHP, might not be the person who holds ( i.e., owns) the CHP. This final rule specifies that the CHP holder is the person responsible for purchasing an adequate number of stamps to cover the number of stamp validations that are made by the charter vessel guide. If the CHP is sold, CHP holders are responsible for fees for stamp validations that occurred during their respective periods of CHP ownership.
Section 6 of the Act authorizes the development of regulations “for the collection of fees from charter vessel operators.” We do not interpret this provision so restrictively to mean that only a charter vessel operator can be required to purchase stamps. The CHP holder would otherwise be indirectly responsible for the failure to purchase stamps and is in a better position to directly carry the burden of purchasing them. This rulemaking therefore imposes that obligation on the CHP holder, consistent with Congress' intent, purpose, and plain meaning of the Act. Indeed, under longstanding regulations at § 300.67(a)(1), every CHP holder is obligated to ensure that associated charter vessel operators and charter vessel guides comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. Further, CHP holders commonly are the charter vessel operators themselves.
There are also additional reasons to impose the obligation to purchase stamps on CHP holders. If NMFS were to impose that duty on charter vessel operators, the costs of administering this program would increase markedly.
Charter vessel guides and charter vessel operators are often employees of the CHP holder and they have no durable link to NMFS or the charter halibut regulatory programs. Conversely, CHP holders already have established an annual administrative relationship with NMFS. As a result, if charter vessel operators were required to purchase stamps, many new administrative accounts would have to be created. Ultimately, this would mean that there would be a much higher number of eFISH users, the number of eFISH users could change significantly each year, and the technical support that NMFS would need to provide to maintain this system would significantly increase costs. Because the Act authorizes the deduction of administrative costs from the fees collected, this would reduce the benefits of the RQE Program, which would be at odds with Congress's intent and purpose in passing the Act. The requirements for CHP holders in the RQE Program are also consistent with other NMFS regulations that obligate persons or business entities who hold exclusive fishing rights to ensure regulatory compliance for most of the actions associated with their permits ( e.g., § 679.85(a)(1)).
Finally, collecting fees from CHP holders will make the RQE fee collection provisions more readily enforceable than collecting fees from charter vessel operators. In the event of a stamp deficiency, NMFS's only remedy would be to pursue collections against charter vessel operators, who are not otherwise required to register with NMFS. This contrasts with program enforcement for CHP holders, who are limited in number and have greater incentives to timely pay any stamp deficiency and, therein, ensure their CHPs are current and active. Indeed, a CHP is an important asset that a holder has a vested interest in maintaining, and it must be approved by NMFS annually before use. NMFS can require payment of outstanding fees before renewing a CHP.

Charter Halibut Permit Holder Accounts
Under this final rule, NMFS administers the fee collection and issues stamps to CHP holders through a NMFS-approved system. Currently, the NMFS-approved system is a secure online platform, eFISH, that is accessed by Alaska fishery participants for a variety of purposes, including the annual registration of CHPs, recording the retention of GAF, and paying business fishery fees.
Each CHP holder, who holds one or more CHPs, will be required under this final rule to create an eFISH online account and ensure that fees are paid for purchased stamps. All CHPs held by a CHP holder will be included in a single eFISH account, allowing stamps to be used freely across all CHPs on that account. For military charter halibut permits, the MWR is considered to be the CHP holder. For community charter halibut permits, the CQE is considered to be the CHP holder.
Stamps remain in the account until they are validated and debited from the account ( i.e., until they are used) by a charter vessel guide, by the stamp validation process discussed below under “Charter Vessel Guides Validate Stamps.” The stamps are not year-specific and do not expire. If stamps are not used in a given fishing year, they carry over to the next fishing year.
CHP holders are responsible for ensuring that the number of validated stamps tied to their CHP does not exceed the number of stamps that have been purchased in a given fishing year. If a CHP holder is uncertain of how many stamps they may need to purchase for a given season, they may use their eFISH account to monitor stamp validations and to purchase stamps in small increments throughout the fishing year as needed. CHP holders with a non-transferable CHP who are uncertain as to how much longer their CHP is valid may do the same to avoid purchasing more stamps than they need.
If the number of stamp validations exceeds the number of stamps purchased on a CHP holder account, NMFS will notify the CHP holder and give them the opportunity to reconcile the account prior to the annual charter halibut stamp reconciliation deadline. If an uncorrected deficit of stamps exists from the previous fishing year for one or more CHPs, all associated CHPs in that eFISH account are then considered to be delinquent.
Should a CHP holder disagree that their account reflects a stamp purchase and validation imbalance, they have the right to request a hearing and at such a hearing to present evidence to support their position. If NMFS ultimately determines that an account purchase and validation imbalance has not been reconciled for the previous fishing year, NMFS may issue an Initial Administrative Determination (IAD) and suspend the use and transfer of any CHPs associated with the CHP holder account until the outstanding fees are paid in full. The CHP holder may appeal and have the IAD reviewed by NOAA's National Appeals Office.

Charter Vessel Guides Validate Stamps
This final rule requires that charter vessel guides validate stamps before each charter vessel fishing trip begins. Stamp validation requires the charter vessel guide to record the number of stamps that are required for a particular charter vessel fishing trip in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook (ADF&G logbook). A charter vessel guide must validate one stamp for each charter vessel angler, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut on the charter vessel in IPHC regulatory area 2C or 3A, unless that charter vessel angler retains halibut as GAF on a day that is otherwise closed to halibut retention by the annual management measures published pursuant to § 300.62.
A charter vessel fishing trip, as defined at § 300.61, begins with the first deployment of fishing gear into the water from a charter vessel by a charter vessel angler. Charter vessel guides must use the ADF&G logbook to validate the number of stamps that are needed for that charter trip before this time, or prior to the first deployment of fishing gear on each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days. This timing is consistent with Federal regulations that require charter vessel guides to enter the name and sport fishing license number of each charter vessel angler in a properly assigned ADF&G logbook before a charter vessel fishing trip begins (§ 300.65(d)(4)(ii)(B)(6)). This means that if weather, or other reasons, forces a charter vessel to return to port before fishing begins no stamp needs to be validated for that day.
For a given charter vessel fishing trip, a stamp is valid from the time that it is validated, Alaska local time, through 2400 on the calendar day on which it was validated, Alaska local time, and is not transferable between charter vessel anglers nor allowed to be used on any other charter vessel fishing trip. For purposes of stamps, a charter vessel excursion that spans more than one calendar day treats each calendar day in which fishing occurs as an individual charter vessel fishing trip, meaning that a stamp must be validated for each charter vessel angler on each calendar day before first deployment of gear. In the case of a charter vessel angler who goes on multiple charter vessel fishing trips in one calendar day, a stamp is required to be validated for that angler for each charter vessel fishing trip.
Current ADF&G regulations require charter vessel guides to upload or otherwise send their completed ADF&G logbook information to ADF&G on a regular schedule. The stamp validation information uploaded from ADF&G logbooks will be shared with NMFS. NMFS will then compare stamp validation information from the ADF&G logbook with the individual CHP holder stamp accounts in eFISH periodically during the fishing season, with a final update and comparison prior to December 31. In this way, CHP holder stamp accounts will contain a record of stamp purchases and validations. Due to the time lag between submitting the ADF&G logbooks and NMFS receiving the ADF&G logbook information, it may take several weeks for eFISH accounts to reflect validations. Charter halibut fishery participants, who may not be the CHP holder, will also be able to monitor validations through access to their ADF&G logbook data.
Additionally, this final rule includes flexibility in that stamp validations may occur even if stamps have not been purchased yet. For example, a CHP holder leasing their CHP may not know the exact number of validations charter vessel guide(s) operating under their CHP have used during the fishing year. The CHP holder has the option to buy any additional stamps they need for a given fishing year after all validations have occurred, with the only requirement that, within the time period prescribed by § 679.46(a)(1)(v), the CHP holder must purchase enough stamps to cover the validations indicated in their eFISH CHP holder account.

Charter Halibut Stamp Transferability
As discussed above, once purchased, stamps are linked to the eFISH account of the CHP holder who purchased them and all CHPs held by a CHP holder will be included in a single eFISH account, allowing stamps to be used freely across all CHPs on that account. Stamps do not expire and, if they have not been validated by the end of the fishing year, they may be validated in a future fishing year. If a CHP is revoked, transferred, or becomes invalid, or if a community charter halibut permit or military charter halibut permit is invalidated, the stamps remain linked to the account that held that CHP. Should another valid CHP be transferred to the person, or entity, associated with that eFISH account, the stamps will be available for use by the holder of the valid CHP.
This final rule does not allow a CHP holder to transfer stamps to another CHP holder. NMFS considered, but did not select options, to allow for transfer or reimbursement of unused stamps. Given the purchase-as-needed flexibility built into the RQE Program and the lack of an expiration date for stamps that have not been validated (used), NMFS determined that allowing stamp transfers and reimbursements would serve limited purposes and materially increase the complexity and administrative costs associated with the program, without proportionate benefits. The proposed RQE Program fee collection allows CHP holders to purchase stamps at any time during the season, allowing CHP holders to maintain an operable amount of stamps without the need to stockpile stamps, and to carry over unused stamps indefinitely.

The Fee for Charter Halibut Stamps
This final rule implements a $20 fee that will apply to each stamp required for a charter vessel angler who intends to catch and retain halibut. The $20 fee is expected to provide the RQE Program with meaningful funding to benefit the entire charter halibut fishery and halibut resource while limiting the cost burden experienced by the individual CHP holders that would pay the fee. Before selecting the $20 stamp fee amount, NMFS considered a range of fee amounts and options, which are further described in the preamble to the proposed rule, the RIR, and below under “Comments and Responses” in the responses to Comments 14 and 15.

Changes to the Fee
Under this final rule, the RQE may petition NMFS to increase or decrease the fee for the stamp beginning in 2028. The fee for the stamp may not increase by more than 10 percent of the fee in the previous fishing year. Any fee increases or decreases will be implemented as regulations through the rulemaking process. The RQE may petition NMFS to suspend the fee at any time. NMFS will provide the Council with an update on any fee increase, decrease, or suspension requests.
This final rule also allows for suspension of the stamp requirement and fee collection, if necessary. These regulations authorize NMFS to temporarily or permanently suspend fee collection if a petition from the RQE is received. This allows NMFS to stop or reduce the fee once the RQE has purchased all the QS it is authorized to hold, or for other reasons.
Additionally, these regulations allow the Regional Administrator to suspend the stamp requirement if the RQE is determined to be out of compliance with regulations, the RQE's own by-laws, or other applicable law; the Regional Administrator approves a petition by the RQE to suspend the RQE fee collection; or Congress no longer provides authorization for the Secretary of Commerce to collect and spend the fees.

Prohibitions
This final rule prohibits a charter vessel guide from using a charter vessel to catch and retain halibut in IPHC regulatory area 2C or 3A unless the charter vessel guide has completed a charter halibut stamp validation for each charter vessel angler, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut. An exception to this prohibition is when a charter vessel angler retains halibut as GAF on a day that is otherwise closed to halibut retention by charter vessels by the annual management measures published pursuant to § 300.62.
Additionally, the final rule prohibits a charter vessel guide from validating a stamp after the charter vessel fishing trip has begun, or after the first deployment of fishing gear on each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days. The final rule prohibits validating a stamp if the charter vessel guide does not have a valid CHP on board the charter vessel per § 300.67(a)(1). This final rule prohibits a CHP holder from failing to purchase or hold a number of charter halibut stamps equal to or greater than the number of charter halibut stamp validations that were performed under their CHP in a given fishing year.

Changes From the Proposed to Final Rule
This final rule includes the following substantive changes from the proposed rule to address public comments, clarify regulatory language, and to correct inadvertent errors in the proposed regulations. Throughout the regulatory text, NMFS also made technical and grammar edits to correct regulatory cross references, use consistent terms, remove redundancy, and promote clarity.
At § 300.61, NMFS added definitions with citations for the terms “Charter halibut permit holder,” “Charter halibut stamp,” and “Charter halibut stamp validation.” This change is intended to direct readers from § 300.61 to § 679.2, where the full definition may be found.
NMFS corrected the title of the ADF&G Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook in the final rule at § 300.65 for “Charter vessel guide requirements” and at § 679.2 for “Charter halibut stamp validation.”
NMFS revised § 300.65(d)(4)(ii)(B)( 11 ) to specify that the validation of stamps must occur before the charter vessel fishing trip begins, or prior to deployment of fishing gear on each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, consistent with the definition at § 679.2.
NMFS revised the definition of “charter halibut stamp validation” at § 679.2 as well as regulations at §§ 679.7(q)(2) and 679.46(a)(1)(i) to specify that validation of stamps must occur prior to first deployment of gear on a given calendar day for a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple calendar days. This modification to the final rule is consistent with the intent of the proposed rule that a stamp is required for each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip, and this clarifies the required timing of validation for charter vessel fishing trips that span multiple calendar days.
The proposed rule stated that a stamp must be validated for each charter vessel angler who is 18 years of age or older on board the charter vessel and intends to catch and retain halibut for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut. In response to comments, NMFS removed the requirement to validate a stamp for charter vessel anglers who retain halibut landed as GAF on days that are otherwise closed by regulation to halibut retention under the annual management measures for the charter fishery (see the response to comment 12 in the Comments and Responses section below). Halibut retained as GAF are not included in the annual charter halibut allocations and GAF represent halibut QS that has already been transferred from the commercial halibut fishery to the charter halibut fishery. This change is reflected in the revised definition for “charter halibut stamp” at § 679.2. NMFS also revised the regulation at § 679.46(a)(1) to match the definition for “charter halibut stamp” and by adding a citation for GAF to direct the reader to the correct description of GAF as described at § 300.65.
NMFS revised this final rule from the proposed rule at §§ 679.7(q)(1), 679.46(a)(1)(ii), and 679.46(c)(2) to state that stamps must be validated for charter vessel anglers as specified at § 679.46(a)(1). NMFS notes that these changes do not extend to the use of GAF on days that are open to halibut retention by charter vessel anglers. On these open days, a stamp exemption for GAF would have the potential to undermine both the GAF and RQE Program fee collection, primarily due to the difficulty of accounting for, and enforcing, both bag limits and stamp requirements when halibut landed as GAF are mixed with non-GAF halibut onboard a charter vessel.
The proposed rule included a provision specifying that the RQE could petition NMFS to increase, decrease, or suspend the RQE Program fee collection beginning in 2028 as specified at § 679.46(b)(2). The regulations at § 679.46(d) outline how the RQE would petition NMFS to suspend the fee collection, which is not time-limited. The final rule resolves this inconsistency by revising regulations at § 679.46(b)(2) and adding § 679.46(b)(3) to clarify that the RQE may petition NMFS to suspend the fee at any time.
The proposed rule included a provision specifying that stamps must be obtained and applicable fees paid by persons who hold a CHP and a valid ADF&G sport fishing guide registration at § 679.46(c). This final rule removes the provision at § 679.46(c)(1) specifying that a valid ADF&G sport fishing guide registration is required. Therefore, under this final rule, any CHP holder, regardless of whether they hold a valid ADF&G sport fishing guide registration, will be responsible for obtaining stamps and paying applicable fees for the associated CHP. NMFS made this change because there is no requirement that CHP holders register as sport fishing guides. Therefore, to be consistent with the Council's intent that this fee collection applies to all CHP holders, NMFS removed the provision at § 679.46(c)(1) of the proposed rule. This final rule also revises § 679.46(c)(2) by removing the phrase “ensuring there is a charter halibut stamp that has received” in association with charter halibut stamp validation. This revision clarifies that the charter vessel guide is responsible for stamp validation but is not responsible for ensuring a stamp has been purchased.
Throughout the regulatory text, NMFS replaced references to “fee liability” with language better aligned with the stamp requirement established by this final rule, including “reconciliation,” “charter halibut stamp deficit,” and “outstanding charter halibut stamps.” NMFS also added the phrase “before the charter vessel fishing trip begins” to further clarify the intent of regulations. These changes are technical and do not modify any process or effect between the proposed and final rules. These changes are intended to more precisely describe the requirement that a stamp must be purchased for each stamp validation that occurs in a year.

Comments and Responses
NMFS received 129 comment submissions on the proposed rule. The comments were from individuals, sportfishing organizations, and fishing guides. Several comment submissions were duplicates or addressed topics outside the scope of the proposed rule. Overall, there was a mix of support and opposition, with those comments opposing the rule expressing concerns about the cost of stamps, the respective responsibilities of CHP holders, charter vessel guides, charter vessel operators, and charter vessel anglers, and the lack of transferability or refunds for purchased halibut stamps. Some commenters expressed concerns about the timing of the proposed and final rules with respect to when the charter halibut fishery occurs. NMFS has summarized the comment submissions and responded to 51 unique comments below.

Comments in General Support of This Action
Comment 1: The proposed rule captures the intent of the fee collection program. This was the product of 15 years of public outreach and the Council process at the request of charter halibut fishery participants and trade organizations. This program will provide benefits while not reducing public access to the resource or impacting sustainability.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.
Comment 2: The RQE Program fee collection of $20 per day is not a cost that will prohibit or deter sport anglers. This is a small financial burden that provides massive benefit to the charter halibut fleet and is the appropriate amount to provide the RQE with purchasing power while also allowing the CHP holders to pass the cost of the stamp to the charter vessel anglers. This fee is also a smaller financial burden on individual CHP holders than purchasing IFQ and utilizing the GAF Program.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.
Comment 3: Several commenters supported the concept of the RQE but requested adjustments to improve the administrative efficiency of the fee collection and to make it more user friendly.
Response: NMFS acknowledges these comments. NMFS has summarized and responded to all of the requested adjustments in the following sections of this response to comments. When appropriate, NMFS has modified the final rule in response to requested adjustments. NMFS also explains when a requested adjustment is not feasible and, therefore, NMFS did not make the change. A complete list of all the changes from proposed to final rule is in this preamble under “Changes from Proposed to Final Rule.”
Comment 4: Currently, the allocation to the charter sector is not sufficient for reasonable opportunity to retain halibut at the current abundance levels in IPHC regulatory area 2C. The RQE will increase opportunities by utilizing the fee component to purchase halibut QS. The RQE could result in less restrictive regulations for the charter halibut fishery, despite the halibut resource being at a 30-year low. The RQE Program fee collection is a good step towards shifting allocation and creating a viable fishery without implementing a permanent stamp fee that cannot be suspended or altered.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.
Comment 5: This fee collection will allow the charter fleet to compete with the self-guided fleet. Avoiding charter closure days and increasing the size limits will create more equity with the self-guided fleet, which is allowed to retain two halibut per person per day with no size restrictions.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.
Comment 6: The charter halibut fleet, and the idea of catching halibut, brings many tourists to Alaska. As a result, local communities benefit from various taxes and the money spent directly at local establishments, which also supports local employment. The RQE Program and associated fee collection help maintain the stability of the charter fleet despite current allocations and dwindling stocks, keeping more charter halibut fishery participants in business.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.
Comment 7: Information received through email flyers and local outreach meetings were useful in informing participants and directing them to comment on the proposed rule.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.
Comment 8: The charter sector should purchase their share of halibut QS. This rule addresses that.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.

Comments on Provisions of the Act Authorizing the Fee
Comment 9: The charter halibut stamp should function similarly to the ADF&G king salmon stamp, meaning that it is purchased by the charter vessel angler, not the CHP holder. Additionally, this fee collection should apply to all anglers, including self-guided anglers, and all non-resident anglers.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Congress, through the Act, authorized regulations necessary for the collection of fees from charter vessel operators who guide recreational anglers who retain halibut in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. As such, NMFS is not authorized to collect fees from charter vessel anglers, or any other individual anglers such as self-guided anglers, nonresident anglers, or resident anglers for charter halibut stamps.
Furthermore, funds collected under this action will benefit only the charter halibut sector. Therefore, there is no equitable reason to include anglers outside the charter halibut sector in this fee collection, even if NMFS did have authorization to collect fees from them.
Comment 10: Research and promotion of the halibut resource should not be an authorized use of funds generated from the fee collection.
Response: Congress specified, through the Act, that any fees collected shall be available for financing administrative costs of the RQE Program; the purchase of halibut QS in areas 2C and 3A by the RQE; halibut conservation and research; and promotion of the halibut resource by the RQE. This action does not address authorized uses of fees collected by this program. NMFS has no authority or discretion to modify laws passed by Congress.
Comment 11: What is the estimated amount of funds that will be available for purchasing QS, compared to the amount of funds for administration, conservation, or promotion of the halibut resource?
Response: As discussed in response to comment 10, the Act allows fees to be used for these purposes. The Act does not specify any specific allocation of fees among the authorized uses of the collected fees. It is expected that fees collected by this program will be primarily used by the RQE to purchase halibut QS, consistent with the intent of the RQE Program. Section 3.5.1.2 of the RIR discusses the expected revenue amounts from this fee collection. The RIR indicates that the estimated average annual revenue from stamp purchases would be $1,788,687 from IPHC regulatory area 2C and $2,205,645 from area 3A. NMFS anticipates issuing funds collected from this program to the RQE as a grant. These grants will include NMFS oversight and may include stipulations on the allowable use of funds.

Comments on GAF and the RQE Program Fee Collection
Comment 12: Stamps should not be required for charter vessel anglers when the charter halibut fishery is closed to halibut retention under the annual management measures for the charter fishery, but the retention of GAF is still allowed. GAF constitutes a transfer of halibut from the commercial IFQ sector and is not part of the annual guided halibut allocation.
Response: NMFS agrees with this comment. NMFS changed this final rule to remove the halibut stamp requirement for GAF users on days that are otherwise closed to halibut retention under the annual management measures for the charter fishery by revising the definition of “charter halibut stamp” at § 679.2 to specify that the stamp does not apply to charter vessel anglers who retain halibut as GAF, as defined at § 300.61, on days that are otherwise closed by the annual management measures for the charter fishery to halibut retention. NMFS also revised the regulation at § 679.46(a)(1) to match the definition for “charter halibut stamp” at § 679.2. To consolidate references to the applicability of stamps, NMFS revised this final rule at §§ 679.7(q)(1)(i), 679.46(a)(1)(ii), and 679.46(c)(2) to state that stamps must be validated for charter vessel anglers as specified at § 679.46(a)(1).
Annual charter halibut management measures in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A often prohibit the retention of halibut by charter vessel anglers on specific days of the week. However, as noted in this comment, these prohibitions typically do not prohibit the retention of GAF halibut on the closed days because halibut retained as GAF are not included in the annual charter halibut allocations. In addition, GAF represent halibut QS that have already been transferred from the commercial halibut fishery to the charter halibut fishery. Additional information about the GAF Program is in the preamble under “Guided Angler Fish (GAF) Program.”
NMFS determined these facts provide sound rationale to remove the halibut stamp requirement for charter vessel anglers who retain only GAF halibut on days that are otherwise closed by regulation to halibut retention under the annual management measures for the charter fishery.
NMFS notes that this change does not extend to the use of GAF on days that are not closed to halibut retention. On these open days, a stamp exemption for GAF has the potential to undermine both the GAF and RQE Program fee collection, primarily due to the difficulty of accounting for, and enforcing, both bag limits and stamp requirements when halibut landed as GAF are mixed with non-GAF halibut onboard a charter vessel.
Comment 13: The RQE Program and associated fee collection are unnecessary because GAF already provides a way for charter businesses to purchase more halibut QS.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the RQE Program and associated fee collection are unnecessary. Both the GAF Program and the RQE Program provide unique benefits to the charter fishery. GAF are intended to benefit individual charter operations by providing a means to temporarily transfer a limited amount of halibut IFQ from the commercial halibut fishery to individual charter vessel guides. This differs from the RQE Program, which allows the RQE to hold halibut QS indefinitely and is designed to benefit all charter operations in IPHC areas 2C and 3A.
NMFS also notes that CHP holders who currently participate in the GAF Program will likely benefit from both programs. That is, all CHP holders will benefit from less restrictive annual management measures and holders of GAF will also continue to benefit from GAF to retain large fish or fish on days otherwise closed to halibut retention.

Comments on Stamp Structure and Fee Amount
Comment 14: The stamp fee should be a different price than $20. Several commenters suggested a price of $10 per stamp. Selecting the $20 fee over lesser costs is unreasonable in light of the last-minute changes recommended by the Council in October 2024.
Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. This final rule establishes a fee of $20 for charter halibut stamps, as recommended by the Council after extensive analysis and public comment. The $20 fee is expected to strike a balance between providing a meaningful amount of funding to benefit the charter fishery while also limiting the annual cost burden. Section 3.5.1.3 of the RIR shows expected revenue to the RQE at various stamp fee amounts. The $20 fee amount is intended to allow the RQE to relatively quickly purchase a reasonable amount of halibut QS to supplement the charter halibut allocation while also representing a nominal increase to the total cost of a charter halibut fishing trip. Beginning on January 1, 2028, the RQE may petition NMFS to increase or decrease the fee for the stamp. Changes to the fee amount will be subject to a regulatory action and all relevant Federal requirements, including an analysis of alternatives and opportunities for public input. NMFS will provide the Council with an update on any requests to modify or suspend the fee for a charter halibut stamp. As discussed in response to comment 15, a $20 fee for each stamp is reasonable considering the analysis and the Council's decision to remove the tiered fee structure in October 2024.
Comment 15: The stamp should resemble the ADF&G king stamp by implementing a one-day, three-day, seven-day or seasonal stamp with discount rates as originally recommended by the Council in 2022. This would reduce costs to anglers and administrative burden to charter halibut fishery participants who would not have to validate stamps each day for anglers fishing multiple days. This would also make it easier for charter vessel guides to adjust their fishing plans on a multi-day trip without having to commit to validating a stamp each day prior to fishing when they may not end up fishing for halibut due to weather or other reasons.
Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The Council's original recommendation called for a tiered fee structure for stamps. Although tiered fees are common among State of Alaska stamps and licenses, all the State of Alaska tiered fees that were analyzed for this action are linked to a specific person and must be purchased by the person intending to fish. Applying tiered fees to a daily halibut stamp would greatly add to the complexity and cost of the RQE Program because the stamps would need to be assigned to specific anglers and tracked across multiple days, vessels, and potentially ADF&G logbooks.
As noted in the RIR, in April 2022, the Council recommended a tiered fee structure for halibut stamps, with a base fee of $20 for a daily stamp, and tiered to $40 for a three-day stamp and $60 for a seven-day stamp. After Federal law was amended in early 2023 to authorize the RQE fee collection through the Act, NMFS further analyzed implementation of the fee collection program. This effort included outreach sessions with participants in the charter halibut fishery in several communities located in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A in 2023 and early 2024. NMFS and Council staff subsequently prepared a discussion paper on the halibut stamp fee implementation, and in June 2024 presented the paper to the Council. Among other things, the paper established a rationale for a uniform $20 stamp fee instead of tiered fees. The Council addressed this topic again in October 2024 and took action to amend their original April 2022 motion and to adopt and recommend the uniform $20 stamp fee to the Secretary of Commerce.
During the outreach process, participants in the charter halibut fishery pointed to a lack of equity among fishing businesses if tiered fees were implemented. CHP holders that cater almost exclusively to one or two-day trips would be responsible for paying fees at the highest level, while other operations that log the same number of angler days, but whose guests tend to fish for three or more days, would contribute disproportionately less to the RQE. Ultimately, the Council recommended, and NMFS is adopting, a single daily fee to establish a simple, less costly program that ensures specific business types are not arbitrarily penalized, and all CHP holders will contribute equally to the RQE fee collection based on the number charter vessel angler halibut fishing days. These issues are also described in Section 3.5.1.3 of the RIR.
Comment 16: The removal of the multi-day stamp option adversely impacts the intent-based validation of stamps. Charter vessel guides may have to validate a stamp for every fishing trip, regardless of target species. It is unrealistic to expect enforcement officers to intuitively determine target species at sea.
Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The charter halibut stamp validation process and enforcement of the validation is the same for a single day trip or a multi-day trip. The requirement for a halibut stamp is based on whether the charter vessel angler intends at the beginning of each charter vessel fishing trip to catch and retain halibut. From an enforcement perspective, the presence of retained halibut onboard a charter vessel after a charter vessel fishing trip has begun will evidence the need for validated stamps for that charter vessel trip. In any case, under the Council's recommendation, a multi-day stamp would require validation prior to the start of a charter vessel fishing trip on any given day. Functionally, this would be the same as a daily stamp. This final rule does not prohibit the catch and release of halibut without a charter halibut stamp validation. Rather, a charter halibut stamp validation is required only if a charter vessel angler intends to both catch and retain halibut.
Comment 17: Unused stamps should be refundable or, at least, transferable. This will cost the CHP holder money as these stamps are not able to be refunded or validated a second time.
Response: NMFS disagrees. As described in this preamble under “Charter Halibut Stamp Transferability,” NMFS considered, but decided against, allowing for the transfer and reimbursement of purchased stamps. Given the purchase-as-needed flexibility built into the RQE Program fee collection, NMFS determined that allowing stamp transfers and reimbursements would serve limited purposes and materially increase the complexity and administrative costs associated with fee collection without proportionate benefits. CHP holders are allowed to purchase stamps at any time during the season, allowing CHP holders to maintain an operable amount of stamps without the need to stockpile stamps. CHP holders may also lease their CHPs to other users to deplete any unused stamps prior to the transfer of a CHP. Additionally, CHP holders are able to reconcile stamp deficits at the end of the year without penalty. Furthermore, stamps not used in a fishing year do not expire and roll over into all subsequent fishing years until used ( i.e., validated).

Comments on the Impacts of the RQE Program and Associated Fee Collection
Comment 18: This proposed rule precedes the development of operating rules for the RQE, which creates uncertainty regarding how the RQE will function on behalf of the diverse businesses funding it. Commenters noted that there are no requirements on RQE board membership imposed by the proposed rule. How does NMFS intend to prevent the RQE from using funds from this fee collection improperly or operating inefficiently?
Response: This action does not address the existing regulations governing the RQE and any changes to these regulations are outside of the scope of this action. NMFS published a proposed rule to authorize the formation of the RQE on November 17, 2017 (82 FR 46016). NMFS considered implementing requirements on RQE board members but ultimately proposed that no requirements be specified. NMFS received no comments requesting NMFS specify requirements for the RQE board. The final rule to authorize the formation of the RQE did not specify requirements for RQE board members (83 FR 47819, September 21, 2018).
Existing regulations, at §§ 679.5(l)(9) and 679.5(v), require the RQE to submit an annual report to NMFS detailing its activities. This report will provide information on the RQE's structure, expenditures, and other activities such that compliance with applicable law and regulations can be determined. Additionally, the RQE must continue to be recognized as exempt from Federal income tax by the Internal Revenue Service. If the RQE is determined to be out of compliance with regulations, the RQE's own by-laws, or other applicable regulations, the Regional Administrator may suspend the stamp requirement and fee collection, as specified at § 679.46(d).
NMFS will maintain administrative oversight of the RQE operations, including the appropriate use of funds, by virtue of the stipulations and conditions associated with the NMFS grant of funds to the RQE.
Comment 19: The stamp fee and fee increase provision are not appropriate, as the RQE board members and NMFS may change the stamp fee with no additional input from the CHP holders who are subject to paying that increase.
Response: NMFS disagrees that changes to the fee could occur with no input from the CHP holders who are responsible for paying those fees. While the RQE may petition NMFS to initiate a fee change request, any eventual increases to the stamp fee would entail a regulatory amendment because the fee is set in regulation at § 679.46(b)(1). NMFS will comply with all necessary steps required under Federal law, including public input, in promulgating a regulatory amendment. NMFS would consider all comments from the public when deciding to develop any rule implementing a fee change.
Comment 20: Please clarify how the charter halibut fleet will see benefits that result from the fee collection. Will there ever be enough RFQ to lessen restrictions on the charter halibut fleet? When will the RQE purchase halibut QS? What is the endpoint for RQE QS purchases? Will the RQE or NMFS determine when to purchase additional QS?
Response: NMFS expects this action to provide significant funding for the RQE to obtain halibut QS, as explained in the RIR for this action (see ADDRESSES ). It is expected that fees collected by this program will be primarily used by the RQE to purchase halibut QS. The RQE will determine when to purchase halibut QS and the resulting poundage will be added to the charter halibut allocation as RFQ under the CSP. The RIR indicates how these additions to the charter halibut allocation could provide greater opportunities for charter vessel anglers.
In order for the RQE to receive funds from this action, Congress must first appropriate collected funds to NMFS. NMFS then expects to issue funds to the RQE as a grant as soon as practicable. It may be reasonable to expect that Congress appropriates these funds annually. For example, fees collected during the 2026 fishing year could be appropriated to NMFS in 2027 if Congress takes the necessary action. After the appropriation is made, NMFS will work to make these funds available to the RQE as soon as practicable. Once the RQE receives these funds, the RQE will determine when to purchase QS.
Existing regulations allow the RQE annually to purchase up to 1 percent of the commercial QS in IPHC regulatory area 2C, and 1.2 percent of the QS in area 3A, subject to certain restrictions on particular classification types of QS (§ 679.42(f)(8)). Cumulatively over time, existing regulations allow the RQE to hold an amount of halibut QS equivalent to up to 10 percent of the halibut QS in IPHC regulatory area 2C and 12 percent of the halibut QS in area 3A (§ 679.42(f)(8)). The RIR indicates this cumulative amount would have added 341,000 pounds to the IPHC regulatory area 2C charter allocation, and 846,000 pounds to the area 3A charter allocation, based on the QS/IFQ conversion rates in 2020. These amounts are expected to be meaningful when the annual management measures are developed. The additional pounds could allow for less restrictive annual management measures such as bag limits, size limits, and day of the week closures, and in the event of declines in the halibut resource could help avoid more conservative management measures which would further constrain the charter halibut fishery.
Comment 21: Will future CHP entrants that have not paid into the RQE Program fee collection benefit from the QS purchased in previous years?
Response: Yes. QS purchased by the RQE may be held indefinitely and the added allocation from that QS will be available to all CHP holders operating in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. It should also be noted that existing CHP holders may benefit from increased permit values if the RQE Program increases charter halibut harvest opportunity as it is designed to do.
Comment 22: The RQE should not be allowed to continue using the fee funding to purchase QS should the halibut stock continue to decline. Many commenters were concerned about the potential conservation impacts of this action would have on the halibut stock in its current low abundance state.
Response: Existing RQE regulations at § 679.42(f) establish limits on the amount of QS that the RQE can receive by transfer annually and in total, as explained in the response to comment 20. However, as noted above, Congress authorized stamp fees to be used for other activities besides QS purchases. Those uses may factor into decisions about the amount of the fee, or whether the stamp program should continue. Regardless, after 2028 the RQE may petition NMFS to reduce the stamp fee, or the RQE may petition to suspend the fee at any time.
The RQE Program and associated fee collection action are specifically intended to provide additional harvest opportunities to the charter halibut fishery, particularly during periods of low halibut abundance through a market-based transfer of halibut QS from the commercial sector to the charter halibut sector. This action also provides mechanisms to reduce or suspend the fees in the event they are no longer required or beneficial to the charter industry.
This action is not expected to result in increased impacts to the halibut stock. The RQE Program and the regulations addressed by this final rule for this fee collection program do not change the total halibut mortality limits established annually by the IPHC. As such, if the halibut stock were to decline, the amount of halibut associated with the QS purchased with fee funding would be adjusted according to the limits established on an annual basis. As noted above and in the preamble to the proposed rule, the RQE Program merely represents a voluntary ( i.e., willing buyer, willing seller) transfer of halibut harvest opportunity from one sector (the directed commercial fishery) to another (the charter halibut fishery) in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A, with no overall increase in halibut harvest.
Comment 23: This proposed fee collection adds a substantial cost to participants in the charter halibut fishery, despite the cost per charter vessel angler being $20 per day or per charter vessel fishing trip. This additional cost burden will negatively impact businesses and increase the end cost to charter vessel anglers. Moreover, prices for the 2025 fishing year have already been posted, and this is a new cost to the business not previously factored in. Charter vessel anglers often reserve charter trips one to two years in advance, meaning that charter businesses may not be able to collect this fee, or will have to adjust prices retroactively, which is problematic to clients that have already paid some or all of the previously agreed upon price. To address this, if this action is approved, those commenters recommended delaying fee collection implementation until 2026 or 2027 to allow charter businesses time to adjust and notify future clients.
Response: NMFS agrees that this final rule should be implemented in 2026 to avoid disruptions to business operations from a mid-season implementation, including the disruptions identified in public comments. NMFS set the effective date of this final rule to January 1, 2026.
NMFS acknowledges that this action, which has been in development since 2019, results in additional costs to CHP holders and charter businesses, which they may choose to pass on to other charter halibut fishery participants. The impacts are described in detail at Section 3.5.5 of the RIR. However, over the long term, this action is expected to benefit the charter halibut sector participants by increasing the charter sector's share of the annual halibut allocation.
Public comments and the RIR that led to this action suggest that some or all of these additional costs will be passed on to charter vessel anglers, thereby spreading the burden of the payments to others who may also benefit from an increased charter halibut allocation.
NMFS recognizes that the total sum of fees paid for halibut stamps in a given fishing year is substantial. With the $20 stamp fee, as noted in section 3.5.5 of the RIR, the average cost to a charter halibut business is estimated to be approximately $5,600 annually in IPHC regulatory area 2C and $7,500 annually in area 3A. In both IPHC regulatory areas the maximum cost could be over $50,000 for some CHP holders. The estimated total annual revenues from stamps in IPHC regulatory area 2C is $1.79 million, and $2.20 million from area 3A. Section 3.5.1.2 of the RIR further discusses the potential revenue from the stamp. However, NMFS notes that these costs are also proportional to the gross revenue of the business because the number of stamps is equivalent to the number of charter vessel anglers served. Disproportionate costs on smaller entities are one of the more important reasons that the Council chose not to recommend, and NMFS has not implemented, a flat fee on CHP holders or a multi-day stamp sold at a discounted rate.
Furthermore, NMFS recognizes that charter vessel anglers currently pay a significant amount to participate in the charter halibut fishery. NMFS considered this when developing this action. If considered in the context of costs for travel, lodging, and meals associated with the charter vessel fishing trip that are also required, the impact of this additional fee on individuals is marginal. The $20 fee amount is small relative to the existing costs of participating in the charter halibut fishery while also providing significant funding to the RQE which should yield additional harvest opportunities to charter fishery participants through a market-based transfer of halibut QS from the commercial fishery to the charter fishery. The structure of the halibut stamp program allows the flexibility of CHP holders to share those costs with other participants in the charter halibut fishery if they choose to do so.
Comment 24: Costs imposed by the RQE Program fee collection encourages nonresident anglers to choose self-guided charters.
Response: As described in the response to Comment 23, the $20 stamp amount is not significant in the context of total costs to participate in the charter halibut fishery. The RIR indicates that the great majority of charter vessel anglers fish for halibut for one to three days. If charter halibut businesses pass the entire cost of halibut stamps to their anglers, this would add $20 to $60 in fees for these anglers. CHP holders may choose to pass along only some or even no additional costs to charter vessel anglers. Therefore, it is unclear whether this additional cost will negatively impact the number of persons who choose to participate in halibut charter fishing, particularly if the net benefits of the RQE Program provide more harvest opportunities to charter vessel anglers.
Comment 25: The proposed fee collection is more beneficial to certain charter halibut fishery participants. CHP holders with a large number of lessees and single vessel owners do not benefit equivalently to charter halibut fishery participants deploying multiple vessels from a larger port.
Response: The RQE Program and this fee collection are intended to broadly benefit the entire charter halibut fishery through equitable contributions from all users. As halibut abundance continues to fluctuate, the fees collected from this action may be important to stabilize management measures such as bag limits and day-of-the-week closures that can have significant impacts to certain charter business models and may potentially provide growth opportunities to other charter halibut fishery participants that can take advantage of relaxed management measures.
Comment 26: IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A should have fee collection funds allocated proportionally to each area based on the fee revenue generated from each respective area.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Total fees collected from IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A will be directly proportional to the number of charter vessel anglers on charter vessel fishing trips in each area. The RQE, which is composed of board members who represent each of the IPHC regulatory areas, has the discretion to purchase proportional amounts of halibut QS for each area. Reasons the RQE may not choose to purchase QS proportionally in each area during each year would likely be related to market conditions, including QS availability in each area and pricing.
Comment 27: NMFS is not using all relevant data and should conduct additional analyses before continuing with this action. Many aspects of the proposed fee collection have changed since the Council first took action: the GAF Program is working well for charter halibut fishery participants who want to market opportunities to catch larger halibut or avoid daily closures; the halibut resource is in a precarious state, which raises questions as to whether the RQE will be able to purchase enough QS to influence annual regulatory measures; the sportfishing industry continues to grow, showing that many charter halibut fishery participants can successfully sell trips even with the current size limits; and the Council has refused to address the unregulated growth in self-guided fishing trips.
Response: NMFS has determined that the RIR is sufficient to support the regulations adopted by this final rule. The RIR, the analysis that supported the development of the RQE Program, and comments received on the proposed rule clearly indicate how a greater share of the combined halibut catch limits to the charter sector may allow charter businesses to offer greater opportunities to their clients. Both the GAF Program and the RQE Program are intended to help maintain these opportunities and are especially relevant in periods of low halibut abundance when annual management measures are necessarily restrictive.
NMFS agrees that the GAF Program is working as intended. The success of this program provides evidence that willing buyer-willing seller options to shift halibut allocation from the commercial sector to the charter sector are valid, effective, and reasonable. NMFS notes that the GAF Program is designed to benefit individual participants in the charter halibut fishery, while the RQE Program benefits the charter sector as a whole. Each program will continue to operate concurrently.
While regulating unguided fishing trips is outside of the scope of this action, the Council previously evaluated this issue in 2019 and decided to take no action due to several factors, including challenges in quantifying the number and geographic scope of non-guided rental boat activities and determining the amount of halibut effort and removals that might be associated with this form of unguided recreational halibut fishing. However, the Council process allows the public to raise such concerns as new information becomes available.

Comments on Stamp Accounts and Fee Collection Administration
Comment 28: The Act authorizes fees to be collected from the charter vessel operators. The RQE Program fee collection should require charter vessel operators or charter vessel guides to purchase stamps.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Section 6 of the Act authorizes the development of regulations “for the collection of fees from charter vessel operators.” We do not interpret this provision so restrictively to mean that only a charter vessel operator can be required to purchase stamps. The CHP holder would otherwise be indirectly responsible for the failure to purchase stamps and is in a better position to directly carry the burden of purchasing them. This rulemaking therefore imposes that obligation on the CHP holder, consistent with Congress' intent, purpose, and plain meaning of the Act. Indeed, under longstanding regulations at § 300.67(a)(1), every CHP holder is obligated to ensure that associated charter vessel operators and charter vessel guides comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. Further, CHP holders commonly are the charter vessel operators themselves.
There are also additional reasons to impose the obligation to purchase stamps on CHP holders. If NMFS was to impose that duty on charter vessel operators, the costs of administering this program would increase markedly. Charter vessel guides and charter vessel operators are often employees of the CHP holder and they hold no durable link to NMFS or the charter halibut regulatory programs. Conversely, CHP holders already have established an annual administrative relationship with NMFS. As a result, if charter vessel operators were required to purchase stamps, many new administrative accounts would have to be created. Ultimately, this would mean that there would be a much higher number of eFISH users, the number of eFISH users could change significantly each year, and the technical support that NMFS would need to provide to maintain this system would significantly increase costs. Because the Act authorizes the deduction of administrative costs from the fees collected, this would reduce the benefits of the RQE Program, which would be at odds with Congress's intent and purpose in passing the Act. The requirements for CHP holders in the RQE Program are also consistent with other NMFS regulations that obligate persons or business entities who hold exclusive fishing rights to ensure regulatory compliance for most of the actions associated with their permits ( e.g., § 679.85(a)(1)).
Finally, collecting fees from CHP holders will make the RQE fee collection provisions more readily enforceable than collecting fees from charter vessel operators. In the event of a stamp deficiency, NMFS's only remedy would be to pursue collections against charter vessel operators, who are not required to register otherwise with NMFS. This contrasts with program enforcement for CHP holders, who are limited in number and have greater incentives to timely pay any stamp deficiency and, therein, ensure their CHPs are current and active. Indeed, a CHP is an important asset that a holder has a vested interest in maintaining, and it must be registered with NMFS annually before use. NMFS can require payment of outstanding fees before renewing a CHP.
Comment 29: The RQE Program fee collection places an extra burden on the CQE to purchase and manage stamps in their account throughout the fishing year.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. As described in the proposed rule, CQEs participate in the Charter Halibut Limited Access Program and may be granted Community CHPs by NMFS. Charter operations that use community CHPs are subject to the same annual management measures as all other charter halibut operations. The administrative and management burden by CQEs and all other charter halibut operations are expected to be offset by the benefits of the RQE Program. NMFS designed the elements of the fee collection to minimize the administrative burden to the extent practicable. CQEs would have significant flexibility to administer their stamps in the way that is most advantageous to them.
Comment 30: Only CHP holders are allowed to use accounts to purchase stamps, but some CHP holders lease permits to charter vessel guides who do not hold CHPs. In addition to added difficulties tracking validations across multiple CHPs, this creates tax challenges for the CHP holder as well as the lessee without proper tax documentation, such as receipts. A charter vessel guide should be able to purchase stamps to use in his business. In particular, charter vessel guides leasing a nontransferable CHP should be responsible for purchasing and tracking the stamps associated with that CHP.
Response: NFMS disagrees. As the commenters note, CHPs are commonly leased, and the charter vessel guide who leases, or otherwise uses, the CHP may not be the person who holds or owns the CHP. The CHP holder will ultimately be responsible for ensuring that an adequate number of stamps has been purchased to cover the number of stamp validations that are made by the person who leases, or otherwise uses, the CHP. This action does not limit the ability of CHP holders to incorporate terms related to stamps into their private CHP lease agreements.
NMFS does not expect that this program design will create additional tax challenges. As with any fee paid to lease a CHP, the cost of stamps may simply constitute a business expense. While NMFS would not provide a record of stamp transactions directly to the person leasing a CHP, as NMFS does not regulate and does not have, or provide, any record of CHP lease transactions, there is nothing preventing this from being documented in a private business agreement. A CHP holder may share the record of stamp validations associated with a CHP that will be provided to them in eFISH with any person leasing their permit as supporting documentation.
NMFS will provide a record of stamp validations to the CHP holder that includes validations by individual CHP to CHP holders with multiple CHPs. Additionally, ADF&G logbooks will provide a record of all the stamp validations that charter vessel guides made that are associated with that charter business.
NMFS also notes that ADF&G logbooks are equipped to allow logbook users, such as the charter vessel guide, to individually query the historical data they have supplied on the logbook. Therefore, a charter operation that leases one or more CHPs will have ongoing records of the number and date of halibut stamp validations that have occurred on each of their charter vessel trips. This information is sufficient for the business needs of the charter operations, including for CHP lease transactions and tax purposes.
Finally, NMFS disagrees that the applicability of and responsibility for these fee collection provisions should vary between transferable and non-transferable CHPs because these permits are functionally identical except for transferability. The transferability of a CHP does not affect whether a CHP may be leased or not and does not affect the respective responsibilities of the lessee or lessor. Therefore, there is no rationale establish differential requirements for tacking and purchasing stamps between transferable and non-transferable CHPs.
Comment 31: CHP holders who lease their CHP to multiple charter vessel guides may have issues tracking stamp validations. Stamps should be assigned to the charter vessel guides and specific CHPs, instead of being lumped into a single eFISH account. CHP holders who hold multiple CHPs should be allowed to create individual eFISH accounts for each CHP to ease the burden of tracking individual lessees and their validations.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Tracking the use of charter halibut stamps will begin with halibut stamp validation on ADF&G logbooks. Among other things, logbooks document the CHP serial number(s), the vessel number, and identifiers for the ADF&G registered business that is associated with each charter vessel trip. The logbook data will be collected by ADF&G and shared with NMFS. NMFS intends to merge this data to the eFISH account of each CHP holder. The compiled records in the CHP holder's account will allow the CHP holder to effectively track the daily validation of stamps associated with each unique CHP.
Assigning stamps to charter vessel guides and specific CHPs would materially increase the cost, complexity, and burden of the RQE Program fee collection. Specifically, a CHP, and NMFS, would have to individually administer access and payment to a separate account for each CHP they hold. Given the flexibility allowed in CHP leasing, adjustments to these individual accounts would likely have to be made multiple times per year. Therefore, while it is possible that certain CHP holders who lease multiple CHPs could benefit from stamp accounts associated with individual CHPs, on the whole this approach would result in significant additional administrative cost and time burden associated with the program. Therefore, NMFS chose to have a single stamp account associated with each CHP holder for all of their CHPs.
Comment 32: Charter vessel guides who lease a permit through a broker may not know the CHP holder personally. Please clarify what happens if the CHP holder does not purchase the necessary stamps for the charter vessel guide.
Response: CHP holders are responsible for maintaining an eFISH account and purchasing enough stamps to ensure that the number of validated stamps from charter vessels that use their CHP(s) does not exceed the number of stamps that have been purchased in a given year as required.
If a charter vessel guide validates a number of stamps in excess of the number of stamps purchased by the CHP holder, the CHP holder is responsible for reconciling the deficit. If the deficit is not reconciled within the required time period, the CHP holder will receive an Initial Administrative Determination imposing one or more of the following consequences. Under these circumstances, NMFS may disapprove the transfer application of the CHP and all associated CHPs from that CHP holder until the outstanding stamps are purchased to correct the deficit, except that NMFS may return unused GAF to the IFQ permit holder's account from which it was derived. NMFS may also disapprove a CHP holder's annual registration application for their CHP and all associated CHPs until the outstanding stamps are purchased. Under similar circumstances, NMFS may also invalidate a community or military CHP.
Comment 33: The RQE fee collection will cause logistical issues for charter vessel guides that operate out of remote ports.
Response: NMFS disagrees. This program's design prioritizes flexibility to account for the unique qualities of the many business models that operate under the Charter Halibut Limited Access Program. For example, stamps may be purchased at any time, and in quantities that make sense for a particular business. That means charter vessels operating out of remote ports may purchase stamps at their convenience when CHP holders have access to their eFISH account. Further, validation of stamps can occur anywhere, including in remote areas, just as charter vessel guides currently comply with all other logbook requirements.
In the event a charter vessel guide has an insufficient number of stamps, they may continue to operate, but the holder of the CHP that the charter vessel guide is operating under must correct the deficiency prior to the end of the calendar year. The stamp validation reconciliation occurs at the end of each calendar year, well after all known charter fishing operations cease for the year.
Comment 34: Please clarify whether there is a limit on the number of stamps a CHP holder may purchase.
Response: There is no limit to the number of stamps a CHP holder may purchase.
Comment 35: ADF&G should administer stamp purchases.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The RQE Program fee collection is a Federal initiative. ADF&G has agreed to let NMFS rely on its infrastructure to the extent practicable through use of the ADF&G logbook for validation of stamps. To minimize costs, decrease the time it takes to transfer funds to correct Federal accounts for eventual distribution to the RQE, and to ensure the accountability of CHP holders, NMFS will use its existing, secure eFISH program for stamp purchases.

Comments on the Enforcement of the RQE Program Fee Collection
Comment 36: At-sea enforcement of the RQE Program fee collection will be a lengthy and costly process. Please clarify the nature of penalties and who will be held liable.
Response: NMFS anticipates that most RQE Program fee collection enforcement activities will be conducted during the course of existing enforcement activities and therefore will not add significantly to existing enforcement costs. CHP holders are responsible for purchasing a sufficient number of stamps to meet or exceed the number of validations associated with their CHP(s) in a given fishing year. Charter vessel guides are responsible for validating stamps prior to the start of each charter vessel fishing trip, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days. The penalties for failing to meet these responsibilities are set forth in statute and regulation and are assessed according to the NOAA Penalty Policy and, for certain violations, according to NOAA Summary Settlement Schedules (see https://www.noaa.gov/general-counsel/gc-enforcement-section/penalty-policy-and-schedules ).
Comment 37: NMFS's collection of fees for its administrative role in the RQE Program fee collection should be offset by the cost recovery fees the RQE pays to NMFS. Over half of NMFS's annual budget from cost recovery is spent on enforcement, and enforcement of the RQE Program fee collection is not likely to impose significant additional demand on the agency. NMFS should provide transparent detailing of costs to be reimbursed in an annual itemized report that is made available to the public.
Response: NMFS developed this final rule to minimize administrative costs to the extent practicable, including those related to enforcement. Cost recovery fees ( i.e., IFQ Program cost recovery) paid by the RQE to NMFS would be used to recover eligible costs related to the IFQ Program, which may offset some portion of the total administrative costs of the RQE Program. However, NMFS does not expect that all of its costs to administer the RQE Program are eligible for reimbursement under IFQ Program cost recovery. The remainder of NMFS's administrative costs related to the RQE Program may be recouped from the RQE Program fee collection as the Act provides. More detail on expected enforcement costs related to this action is provided in the response to comment 36. NMFS will continue to work to minimize costs during implementation and operation of the RQE Program fee collection. Additionally, NMFS will evaluate agency expenses each year and provide the public with a report consistent with its existing cost recovery reporting practices.

Comments on Stamp Validation
Comment 38: This action impacts the flexibility of extended fishing trips or trips impacted by weather where there may not be a set schedule for fishing where stamps may be validated but the fishing trip is ultimately canceled. In the event that a trip is cancelled, validated stamps should be refunded.
Response: NMFS disagrees. For charter vessel fishing trips that span multiple days, stamp validation must occur prior to the first deployment of fishing gear into the water each calendar day, as with other existing State of Alaska ADF&G logbook requirements. As a result, if there is uncertainty in whether halibut fishing can occur due to weather or other reasons on a given day, a charter vessel guide may wait to validate stamps until immediately before fishing gear is deployed—that is, until the charter vessel fishing trip (§ 300.61) begins.
Stamp validation is different from purchasing stamps. While stamps should be purchased prior to validation, the regulations allow CHP holders the flexibility to purchase stamps after a charter vessel fishing trip when necessary.
Comment 39: It should be permissible to retain incidental halibut catch during salmon charter fishing trips by allowing for mid-trip validation of stamps after gear deployment. To do this, the regulations should allow for the validation of stamps upon retention of a halibut instead of when there is intent to retain the halibut. The anticipated funds from this fee collection will be recovered by salmon and rockfish charters that unintentionally catch a halibut.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the Council's recommendations and would also present significant enforcement concerns. The Council's recommendations specify that stamps will be required for charter vessel anglers 18 years of age or older for each day they intend to catch and retain halibut. Notably, the Council's recommendations are consistent with other wildlife stamp programs, such as the State of Alaska king salmon stamp which is required to both fish for and retain king salmon.
This final rule is consistent with the Council's recommendations and contemplates situations where halibut are caught and retained by charter vessel anglers targeting other species, such as salmon. Before the deployment of fishing gear, regardless of the species targeted, the charter vessel guide and a charter vessel angler will need to decide whether the angler intends to retain halibut caught on that trip. If a charter vessel angler decides not to retain a halibut or they believe the opportunity to catch a halibut is unlikely, such as on a trip that targets salmon, then the charter vessel angler and charter vessel guide might decide not to validate a stamp for that trip. Conversely, if the charter vessel angler and charter vessel guide intend to retain halibut on a charter vessel fishing trip, whether the fish are caught incidentally or targeted, a stamp must be validated before fishing gear is deployed ( i.e., before the charter vessel fishing trip begins).
Additionally, this program design addresses enforcement concerns. By requiring stamp validation to occur before a charter vessel fishing trip begins, the regulations discourage charter vessel guides from opportunistically validating charter halibut stamps only when they believe they would be questioned by enforcement personnel.
Regarding the anticipated funds collected by a fee collection that would allow for incidental validation of stamps ( i.e., being able to validate a stamp at any time, including after unintentionally catching a halibut and deciding to retain it), NMFS is unable to predict the number of charter vessel anglers who plan to catch and retain halibut given the available data; however, the RIR examines available data on the number of days where ADF&G logbooks indicated some angling effort was devoted to bottom fishing on that particular charter vessel fishing trip. By logical extension, angler days summed in this manner would reasonably be greater than the number of angler days where halibut were retained ( i.e., not all anglers who engage in bottom fishing retain halibut, even if the charter trip targets halibut). Similarly, it is reasonable to assume that the number of stamps validated before a charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut would be greater than the number of stamps validated only when halibut are retained.
Comment 40: Please clarify whether a charter vessel guide must specify the IPHC regulatory area where the vessel will operate prior to leaving the dock or while validating stamps.
Response: The charter vessel guide is not required to indicate which IPHC regulatory area they will be operating in as part of the stamp validation process. However, a charter vessel guide must have a CHP appropriately endorsed for the IPHC regulatory area they are operating in, and the CHP(s) used for the charter vessel fishing trip must have the required number of charter halibut stamps validated that are required for that charter vessel fishing trip prior to the first deployment of gear for each fishing day.
Comment 41: The intent-based validation of stamps should be changed to a retention-based validation of stamps. The Council's Enforcement Committee recommended an annual fee assessment in order to avoid expenditure of enforcement resources. The additional funding acquired from retention of incidental halibut catch will offset the funding lost by removing the intent-based validation of stamps.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The Council and NMFS considered an annual fee levied on CHP holders as a possible way to reduce administrative costs by relying primarily on existing NMFS infrastructure. Table 19 of the RIR summarizes the benefits and challenges associated with this fee mechanism, and section 3.5.1.5 of the RIR further describes some of the expected long-term and short-term administrative costs. NMFS considered this annual fee, but did not select this fee structure due to concerns that it may not equitably distribute the fee burden across CHP holders. More discussion on this is provided in the response to Comment 15.
The response to comment 39 addresses the expected difference in fee collection when comparing an intent-based stamp versus one that could be validated at any time to account for incidental catch.

Comments on Other Topics
Comment 42: The comment period for this rule should be extended until September 1, 2025 to allow for further comment by the public, including charter vessel clients.
Response: NMFS disagrees. This action has been in development since April 2019. Public comments were accepted throughout this period at Council meetings, as well as the standard 30-day comment period provided by the proposed rule. Additionally, outreach events were held in several communities throughout Areas 2C and 3A and were scheduled during the off season, as this is when persons involved in the charter industry were most available. Furthermore, the timing of the comment period provided by the proposed rule in the off-season allowed fishery participants who might otherwise be busy in the fishery greater opportunity to comprehensively evaluate and comment on this action. Please see the preamble to the proposed rule for more detail information on the lengthy public process undertaken to develop the RQE Program fee collection (89 FR 86772, October 31, 2024).

Comments Outside the Scope of This Action
Comment 43: Several commenters suggested that commercial trawl vessels should contribute to the cost of these stamps or proposed other more restrictive management measures for trawl fisheries.
Response: Management of trawl fisheries is outside of the scope of this action. Furthermore, Congress authorized, through the Act, that RQE Program fees be collected only from charter vessel operators.
Comment 44: NMFS should establish a similar funding mechanism for CQE communities.
Response: Establishing funding mechanisms for CQE communities is outside the scope of this action.
Comment 45: Non-transferable CHPs should be transferable in lieu of a stamp.
Response: Changing the transferability of CHPs is outside the scope of this action. However, NMFS notes that this action, and all other CHP program provisions not related to CHP transferability, apply equally to transferable and non-transferable CHPs.
Comment 46: Why is QS beyond that which allows the fleet to retain two halibut of any size distributed back to the commercial sector? These QS were purchased legally by the RQE.
Response: The RQE Program, implemented in 2018, establishes a temporary redistribution of QS back to the commercial fishery if the RQE holds halibut QS in excess of what would allow charter vessel anglers to retain two halibut of any size per day. This is a component of the original RQE Program rules and is not a subject of this rule.
Comment 47: QS purchased by the RQE should not be returned to the commercial sector.
Response: This action does not implement or modify existing regulations pertaining to the RQE's purchase and disposition of QS at § 679.41. Therefore, this comment is outside of the scope of this action.
Comment 48: Several commenters suggested modifications to the annual management measures applicable to the charter halibut fishery, including that IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A should be limited to one halibut per day for charter vessel fishing trips and adding monitoring requirements for the charter halibut fishery that are consistent with the commercial halibut fishery.
Response: This action does not address bag limits or other management measures for the charter halibut fishery; therefore, this comment is outside of the scope of this action. However, as previously discussed, the fees collected as a result of this action may allow for increased flexibility in selecting annual management measures.
Comment 49: The halibut size limits imposed on the charter fleet should apply to self-guided fishing trips as well.
Response: Changing halibut size limits imposed on self-guided anglers is outside the scope of this action.
Comment 50: Please clarify the details of the RQE Program with respect to the function of the program, how quota is determined, and how the program interacts with the commercial fleet.
Response: This action does not address or modify elements of the RQE Program related to the transfer of QS from the commercial sector or how the RQE's QS is applied each year. These details can be found in the final rule document for the RQE Program (83 FR 47819, September 21, 2018) and Federal regulations at § 679.41.
Comment 51: The charter halibut stamp should be a physical stamp or logo so that charter vessel anglers have a tangible record of their fishing trip.
Response: NMFS considered printable stamps but chose to issue electronic stamps instead due to electronic stamps' distinct advantages in cost, distribution, and accounting compared to paper or other forms of physical stamps. These considerations are particularly important for stamps that must be validated on (at minimum) a daily basis, as opposed to other types of stamps such as State of Alaska king salmon stamps that are valid for an entire year or season.

Comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
No comments were specifically related to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act (IRFA), and NMFS addresses comments that concern costs generally throughout the “Comments and Responses” section and in the Classification section.

Classification
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with section 106 of the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Halibut Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule is not a regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 14192 because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13175 (E.O. 13175)
A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 was not required for this final rule because this action does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments, this action is required by statute, and this action does not preempt Tribal law. A Tribal summary impact statement is not required and has not been prepared.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
This FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support this action.
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that, when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a FRFA. Section 604 describes the required contents of a FRFA: a statement of the need for and objectives for this final rule; a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made to the proposed rule as a result of such comments; the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in this final rule as a result of the comments; a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in this final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
A description of this final rule and the need for and objectives of this final rule are contained in the preamble to this final rule and the preamble to the proposed rule (89 FR 86772, October 31, 2024) and are not repeated here.

Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy Comments on the Proposed Rule
NMFS published the proposed rule on October 31, 2024 (89 FR 86772). An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the proposed rule.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Public Comment
NMFS received no comments specifically on the IRFA. However, many commenters were concerned with the additional costs imposed on charter businesses by this stamp requirement. Commenters were also concerned with the additional time burden of complying with this final rule. Some commenters suggested requiring individual charter vessel anglers to pay the fee rather than CHP holders. However, Congress only provided authorization for NMFS to collect fees from charter vessel operators, not individual anglers. In Comments and Responses above, Comment 28 addresses this concern.

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Final Rule
This final rule requires a charter halibut stamp for each charter vessel angler, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut on a charter vessel in IPHC regulatory area 2C or 3A, unless that charter vessel angler retains halibut landed as GAF on days that are otherwise closed by regulation to halibut retention. Charter vessel guides are obligated to ensure that there are validated stamps for each charter vessel angler fishing for halibut on a charter vessel. CHP holders are ultimately responsible for purchasing a sufficient quantity of stamps each fishing year.
Thus, for RFA purposes, those entities that are directly regulated by the action are charter halibut businesses ( i.e., Sportfishing Guide Business Owners), charter vessel guides, CHP holders (including CHPs issued under the CQE and MWR programs), and the RQE. The thresholds applied to determine if an entity or group of entities is considered a “small” business under the RFA depends on the industry classification for the entity or entities.
The ADF&G logbook data shows that, between 2017 and 2022, there were as many as 478 charter halibut businesses, with the low count of 342 occurring in 2021. The most recent data available shows 368 directly regulated charter halibut businesses in 2022. The count of directly regulated charter halibut guides was lowest in 2020, at 820, and highest in 2019 when 1,240 charter vessel guides participated in the affected fishery. Data for the most recent year, 2022, identified 1,037 directly regulated charter vessel guides. Charter vessel guides that are employees of charter halibut businesses are not directly regulated entities under the RFA. However, guides that are independent contractors are directly regulated by this action and would be considered directly regulated entities under the RFA.
There is no annual census data collection of gross revenues for charter businesses or charter vessel guides with which to compare to the $14 million threshold. A voluntary Alaska Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Business Survey has been conducted by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has gathered information on expenses, revenues, and business characteristics for the 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 fishing years. As demonstrated in the most recent Cost and Earnings Report, as detailed in the RIR for this action, the mean gross revenue for the population of charter businesses was between $200,894 (in 2012) and $302,609 (in 2013). These estimates are based on self-reported sales and revenues of charter trips (not necessarily charter vessel fishing trips for halibut) and include client referrals and booking commission revenue as well as revenue accrued by leasing a CHP. These estimates do not account for values derived from additional accommodations or food/beverage service.
Based on the difference between the SBA threshold ($14 million) and the mean revenue for charter businesses reported in the RIR, the available evidence indicates that all directly regulated businesses and associated charter vessel guides are considered “small.” If a business was large enough, potentially including lodging and multiple recreational activities, it is possible it could exceed the SBA threshold. However, there is no data to identify if or how many businesses may fit into this category; thus, all businesses are considered “small.”
Moreover, there is no available data to determine the relationship charter vessel guides have to the business ( e.g., owner/operator, hourly or salaried employee, contracted partnership, etc. ). However, given the relative difference between estimated gross revenue at the business level and the $14 million threshold, those charter vessel guides that represent a separate entity are very likely still considered a small entity by SBA standards. Similarly, CQEs, MWRs, and the RQE are considered to be small entities due to their relationship to the charter fishery. Analysis of the QS purchase limitations of one percent annually and ten percent total are estimated to produce total value of just over $2 million in annual revenue by year ten in IPHC regulatory area 2C and approximately $5.6 million in total value annual value after ten years in IPHC regulatory area 3A. Thus, the CQE and RQE entities are considered to be directly regulated small entities.

Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities
The action alternative analyzed two options for funding the RQE. The first, and the basis of this action, is the stamp paid for by CHP holders with the stamp fees potentially passed on to individual charter vessel anglers. The second alternative is an annual CHP holder fee collection. Note that charter vessel anglers are considered individuals and not directly regulated small entities under the RFA definition. However, as demonstrated in this IRFA, based on the information that is available, all charter halibut businesses and charter vessel guides are considered to be directly regulated small entities. Charging an annual CHP holder-based fee that did not vary depending on the number of charter vessel anglers served may disproportionately impact some directly regulated small entities. The stamp method of fee collection would utilize a market-based approach to fund the RQE that is proportional to each CHP holder's use of the resource. There are costs associated with this action. These include direct costs for the stamps, which are designed to provide a directly corresponding benefit to charter businesses by increasing allocation. With the $20 stamp fee, as noted in section 3.5.5 of the RIR, the average cost to a charter halibut business is estimated to be approximately $5,600 annually in IPHC regulatory area 2C and $7,500 annually in area 3A. In both IPHC regulatory areas the maximum cost could be over $50,000 for some CHP holders. The estimated total annual revenues from stamps in IPHC regulatory area 2C is $1.79 million, and $2.20 million from area 3A. However, NMFS notes that these costs are also proportional to the gross revenue of the business because the number of stamps is equivalent to the number of charter vessel anglers served. The second category of costs are those required to administer the program, which may be deducted from stamp revenues.
Therefore, development of the administrative elements of this action selected options designed to maximize efficiency and benefits to the directly regulated entities. These choices include allowing holders of multiple CHPs to pool their stamps for use on any of those CHPs, rolling unused stamps over to the next fishing year, disallowing transfers of stamps, and utilizing preexisting electronic systems for purchasing stamps. As a result, administrative costs are expected to be only a small portion of total stamp revenues.
Furthermore, this action was requested and helped developed by charter halibut fishery representatives and stakeholders. The analysis of benefits of the stamp fee collection funding mechanism indicates that this is a generally beneficial action in that it provides individual charter vessel anglers with potential opportunities for eased restrictions on halibut retention and greater business opportunities for charter halibut businesses and charter vessel guides. The second alternative of implementing an annual CHP holder fee was deemed insufficient, as it may have disproportionately impacted small entities, which, despite less the halibut resource, would pay the same amount as a larger user under this approach. Thus, based upon the best available scientific data, it appears that there are no significant alternatives to the action that have the potential to accomplish the stated objectives of the section 106 of the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Halibut Act, and any other statutes, and minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the action on small entities while preventing overfishing.

Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
NMFS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict between this final rule and existing Federal rules.

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB did not receive any comments related to the collection-of-information requirements during the PRA comment period, which were outlined in the proposed rule and associated PRA package that was submitted to OMB. NMFS received several comments that relate both to the contents of the proposed rule and its new collection-of-information requirements. Comments 9, 15, 16, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, and 40 relate to different aspects of the new collection-of-information requirements and NMFS's rationale can be found in the responses to those comments. This final rule maintains the proposed rule's changes to the existing requirements for the collection of information for OMB Control Number 0648-0575 (Alaska Halibut Fisheries: Charter) by adding the purchase of charter halibut stamps, adding one new field to the existing ADF&G logbook to record the number of stamps validated on each charter vessel fishing trip, and adding appeals for an IAD received for a number of stamps validated in excess of the number of stamps purchased by the CHP holder in a year. NMFS expects that every CHP holder will purchase stamps at least once per season, and likely at some periodic monthly or weekly interval. This final rule does not change the number of respondents or the responses for the ADF&G logbook. The ADF&G logbook is already completed for every charter vessel fishing trip, and the stamp validation field would be required to be completed for every charter vessel fishing trip that intends to catch and retain halibut. These information collections are necessary to collect fees and administer, and to enforce the RQE Program that was requested by charter halibut fishery stakeholders. Public reporting burden is estimated to average 5 minutes to purchase charter halibut stamps; 5 minutes for the ADF&G logbook, which includes 1 minute for completing the additional field in the logbook; and 4 hours for appeals. The public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
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. Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted on the following website: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by using the search function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number 0648-0575.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. Copies of the proposed rule, this final rule, and the small entity compliance guide are available on the Alaska Region's website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/pacific-halibut-recreational-quota-entity-program-fee-collection.

List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports, Fish Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Russian Federation, Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Samuel D. Rauch III,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR parts 300 and 679 as follows:

PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

Subpart E—Pacific Halibut Fisheries
1. The authority citation for part 300, subpart E, continues to read as follows:

Authority:
16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
2. Amend § 300.61 by:
a. Revising the definition of “Charter halibut permit”;
b. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for “Charter halibut stamp” and Charter halibut stamp validation”; and
c. Revising the definitions of “Charter vessel” and “Charter vessel angler” “Charter vessel fishing trip,” and “Charter vessel guide” to read as follows:
§ 300.61
Definitions.
* * * * *
Charter halibut permit means a permit issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to § 300.67, and subject to requirements in §§ 300.65, 300.66, and 300.67, and 50 CFR 679.7(q), and 679.46.
Charter halibut permit holder (see § 679.2 of this title).
Charter halibut stamp (see § 679.2 of this title).
Charter halibut stamp validation (see § 679.2 of this title).
Charter vessel, for purposes of §§ 300.65, 300.66, and 300.67, and 50 CFR 679.7(q) and 679.46, means a vessel used while providing or receiving sport fishing guide services for halibut, and, for purposes of § 300.63, means a vessel used for hire in recreational (sport) fishing for Pacific halibut, but not including a vessel without a hired operator.
Charter vessel angler, for purposes of §§ 300.65, 300.66, and 300.67, and 50 CFR 679.7(q) and 679.46, means a person, paying or non-paying, receiving sport fishing guide services for halibut.
Charter vessel fishing trip, for purposes of §§ 300.65, 300.66, and 300.67, and 50 CFR 679.7(q) and 679.46, means the time period between the first deployment of fishing gear into the water from a charter vessel by a charter vessel angler and the offloading of one or more charter vessel anglers or any halibut from that vessel.
Charter vessel guide, for purposes of §§ 300.65, 300.66, and 300.67, and 50 CFR 679.7(q) and 679.46, means a person who holds an annual sport fishing guide license or registration issued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, or a person who provides sport fishing guide services.
* * * * *
3. Amend § 300.65 by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(4)(ii)(B) introductory text and adding paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(B)( 11 ) to read as follows:
§ 300.65
Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in waters in and off Alaska.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The charter vessel guide is responsible for complying with the reporting requirements of this paragraph (d) and 50 CFR 679.46. The person whose business was assigned to an Alaska Department of Fish and Game Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook is responsible for ensuring that the charter vessel guide complies with the reporting requirements of this paragraph (d) and 50 CFR 679.46.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Charter vessel guide requirements. If halibut were caught and retained in Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A, the charter vessel guide must record the following information (see paragraphs (d)(4)(ii)(B)( 1 ) through ( 10 ) of this section and 50 CFR 679.46) in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook:
* * * * *
( 11 ) Validation of charter halibut stamps. The charter vessel guide is responsible for complying with the charter halibut stamp validation requirements at 50 CFR 679.46 before the charter vessel fishing trip begins, or prior to deployment of fishing gear on each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days.
* * * * *
4. Amend § 300.67 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 300.67
Charter halibut limited access program.
* * * * *
(a) General permit requirements— (1) Requirements. In addition to other applicable permit, licensing, or registration requirements, any charter vessel guide of a charter vessel during a charter vessel fishing trip with one or more charter vessel anglers catching and retaining Pacific halibut on board must have on board the vessel an original valid charter halibut permit or permits endorsed for the regulatory area in which the charter vessel is operating and endorsed for at least the number of charter vessel anglers who are catching and retaining Pacific halibut. Each charter halibut permit holder must ensure that the charter vessel operator and charter vessel guide of the charter vessel comply with all requirements of §§ 300.65 and 300.66, this section, and 50 CFR 679.46.
* * * * *

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
5. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.
6. Amend § 679.2 by adding in alphabetical order the definitions of “Charter halibut permit,” “Charter halibut permit holder,” “Charter halibut stamp,” “Charter halibut stamp validation,” “Charter vessel,” “Charter vessel angler,” “Charter vessel fishing trip,” “Charter vessel guide,” “Community charter halibut permit,” and “Military charter halibut permit” to read as follows:
§ 679.2
Definitions.
* * * * *
Charter halibut permit (see 50 CFR 300.61 of this title).
Charter halibut permit holder, for purposes of 50 CFR 300.67 of this title and § 679.46, means the person identified on a charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit.
Charter halibut stamp means an electronic stamp that is required for each charter vessel angler, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut on a charter vessel in International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) regulatory area 2C or 3A, unless that charter vessel angler retains halibut as Guided Angler Fish, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61 of this title, on days that are otherwise closed to halibut retention by the annual management measures published pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62 of this title.
Charter halibut stamp validation means, with respect to the Recreational Quota Entity Program fee collection, as described at 50 CFR 679.46, the charter vessel guide, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61 of this title, recording the number of charter halibut stamps required for each charter vessel fishing trip the charter vessel guide provides sport fishing guide services, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61 of this title, in the ADF&G Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook that is required by 50 CFR 300.65(d) of this title before the trip begins, or prior to the first deployment of fishing gear on each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days.
Charter vessel (see 50 CFR 300.61 of this title).
Charter vessel angler (see 50 CFR 300.61of this title).
Charter vessel fishing trip (see 50 CFR 300.61 of this title).
Charter vessel guide (see 50 CFR 300.61 of this title).
* * * * *
Community charter halibut permit (see 50 CFR 300.61 of this title).
* * * * *
Military charter halibut permit (see 50 CFR 300.61 of this title)
* * * * *
7. Amend § 679.4 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(xv)(A) through (C) to read as follows:
§ 679.4
Permits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
If program permit or card type is: | Permit is in effect from issue date through the end of: | For more information, see. . .
* * * * * * *
(xv) Guided sport halibut fishery permits:
(A) Charter halibut permit | Until expiration date shown on permit | 50 CFR 300.67 of this title and § 679.46.
(B) Community charter halibut permit | Indefinite unless invalidated under § 679.46(a)(1)(vi)(D) | 50 CFR 300.67 of this title and § 679.46.
(C) Military charter halibut permit | Indefinite unless invalidated under § 679.46(a)(1)(vi)(D) | 50 CFR 300.67 of this title and § 679.46.
* * * * * * *
* * * * *
8. Amend § 679.7 by adding paragraph (q) to read as follows:
§ 679.7
Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(q) Recreational Quota Entity Program. (1) Be a charter vessel guide during a charter vessel fishing trip in IPHC regulatory area 2C or 3A, unless:
(i) the charter vessel guide has completed a charter halibut stamp validation for each charter vessel angler before the charter vessel fishing trip began, or prior to first deployment of fishing gear on each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, as specified at § 679.46(a)(1); or
(ii) one or more charter vessel anglers retains halibut as Guided Angler Fish, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61 of this title, on days that are otherwise closed to halibut retention by the annual management measures published pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62 of this title.
(2) Be a charter halibut permit holder and fail to purchase a number of charter halibut stamps equal to or greater than the number of charter halibut stamp validations that were performed in a given fishing year by the reconciliation deadline specified in § 679.46(a)(1)(v).
9. Add § 679.46 to read as follows:
§ 679.46
Recreational Quota Entity (RQE) Program fee collection.
(a) Fee collection —(1) Charter halibut stamp. A charter halibut stamp is required for charter vessel anglers, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut on a charter vessel in IPHC regulatory area 2C or 3A, unless that charter vessel angler retains halibut as Guided Angler Fish, as described at 50 CFR 300.65 of this title, on days that are otherwise closed to halibut retention by the annual management measures published pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62 of this title. This includes charter vessel anglers on charter vessels operated under a charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit issued pursuant to 50 CFR 300.67 of this title. A charter halibut permit holder is responsible for purchasing the required number of charter halibut stamps and for complying with all other requirements of this section. The required number of charter halibut stamps is equal to or greater than the number of charter halibut stamp validations (as defined at § 679.2) performed in a given fishing year for each charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit.
(i) Validation of stamps. After determining the number of charter halibut stamps required under this paragraph (a)(1), the charter vessel guide must perform a charter halibut stamp validation as defined at § 679.2 before the charter vessel fishing trip begins, or prior to first deployment of fishing gear on each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days.
(ii) Duration of validation. The charter halibut stamp that has received a charter halibut stamp validation, as defined at § 679.2, is in effect from the time, A.l.t, that it is validated until 2400 hours, A.l.t., the same day. For the purposes of charter halibut stamp validation, if a charter vessel fishing trip lasts more than one calendar day, a charter halibut stamp is required for each charter vessel angler for each calendar day of the charter vessel fishing trip as specified at § 679.46(a)(1).
(iii) Non-transferability. Charter halibut stamps are not transferable. This includes:
(A) After charter halibut stamp validation for an individual charter vessel angler, the charter halibut stamp may not be transferred to or used by any other person.
(B) Charter halibut stamps may only be used for charter halibut permits in a given NMFS-approved account and may not be transferred between approved accounts.
(iv) Rollover. A charter halibut stamp that has been purchased and has not received charter halibut permit validation does not expire. Such charter halibut stamps may be validated in a future fishing year.
(v) Charter halibut stamp validation reconciliation. If, by 2400 A.l.t. on December 31 of a given fishing year, a charter halibut permit holder, for one or more associated charter halibut permits in a NMFS-approved account, has not purchased a number of charter halibut stamps equal to or greater than the number of charter halibut stamps validated under that account for that same fishing year, the Regional Administrator will send a reconciliation notice to the charter halibut permit holder. The reconciliation notice will state the validated charter halibut stamp deficit, as determined by the number of charter halibut stamps validated for that fishing year in excess of the number of charter halibut stamps that have been purchased. A charter halibut permit holder has 30 days from the date of the notice to either purchase the outstanding number of validated stamps or demonstrate how the reconciliation determination is in error.
(vi) Validated Charter halibut stamp deficit. If a charter halibut permit holder does not purchase the outstanding number of validated charter halibut stamps or demonstrate how the reconciliation determination described in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section is erroneous within 30 days as outlined in this paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section, the Regional Administrator may:
(A) Issue an Initial Administrative Determination (IAD) upholding the reconciliation determination;
(B) Disapprove any application to transfer the charter halibut permit, associated charter halibut permits in a NMFS-approved account, GAF, IFQ, or QS to or from the charter halibut permit holder until the outstanding validated charter halibut stamps are purchased, except that NMFS may return unused GAF to the IFQ holder's account from which it was derived on or after the automatic GAF return date;
(C) Disapprove the annual registration application of the charter halibut permit, and all associated charter halibut permits in a NMFS-approved account, in accordance with 50 CFR 300.67(a) of this title, until the outstanding validated charter halibut stamps are purchased; and
(D) Invalidate the community charter halibut permit or military charter halibut permit until the outstanding validated charter halibut stamps associated with that permit are purchased.
(vii) Appeals. A charter halibut permit holder who receives an IAD for a validated charter halibut stamp deficit may appeal the IAD pursuant to 15 CFR part 906.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) Fee amount. (1) The fee for a charter halibut stamp is $20.
(2) The RQE may petition NMFS to increase or decrease the fee for a charter halibut stamp beginning on January 1, 2028. The fee for the charter halibut stamp may not increase by an amount more than 10 percent of the fee in the previous fishing year.
(3) The RQE may petition NMFS to suspend the fee at any time.
(c) Fee payment to NMFS —(1) Obtaining charter halibut stamps. Charter halibut permit holders must obtain charter halibut stamps from NMFS and pay applicable fees as specified at paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) Charter vessel guide responsibilities. Before each charter vessel fishing trip begins, the charter vessel guide is responsible for charter halibut stamp validation for each charter vessel angler as specified at paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(3) Timing of charter halibut stamp reconciliation. Charter halibut stamp reconciliation must occur as specified at paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section.
(d) RQE fee collection suspension. The Regional Administrator may suspend the RQE fee collection indefinitely, or until such a time that any identified RQE operational deficiencies are corrected, if:
(1) Through the issuance of an IAD and the opportunity to appeal the IAD under 15 CFR part 906, the Regional Administrator determines that the RQE is out of compliance with regulations in this title, the RQE's own by-laws, or other applicable law;
(2) The Regional Administrator approves a petition by the RQE to suspend the RQE fee collection; or
(3) Congress no longer provides authorization for the Secretary of Commerce to collect and spend fees.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 220919-0193; RTID 0648-XE987]
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; Closure of the Harpoon Category Fishery for 2025

AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:
Temporary rule; closure.

SUMMARY:
NMFS closes the Harpoon category fishery for large medium and giant ( i.e., measuring 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length (CFL) or greater) Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) for the remainder of the 2025 fishing year. This closure applies to Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permitted vessels.

DATES:
Effective 11:30 a.m., local time, July 2, 2025, through December 31, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Redd, Jr., larry.redd@noaa.gov, or Ann Williamson, ann.williamson@noaa.gov, by email, or by phone at 301-427-8503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 et seq. ) and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). ATCA is the implementing statute for binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27(a) divides the U.S. BFT quota, established by ICCAT and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)(D) to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest quotas under relevant international fishery agreements such as the ICCAT Convention, which is implemented domestically pursuant to ATCA.
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.
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 Harpoon category baseline quota is 59.2 mt. As described under § 635.27(a)(4), the Harpoon category quota is only available between June 1 and November 15 of each year.

Closure of the 2025 BFT Harpoon Category Fishery
To date, reported landings for the Harpoon category total approximately 55.7 mt. As described above, the baseline quota is 59.2 mt. However, landings estimates from 2024 indicate that the Harpoon, Angling, and General category quotas were exceeded. Thus, under § 635.27(a)(9) and consistent with ICCAT requirements, in order to ensure the overall U.S. quota is not exceeded, NMFS expects to take action later this year to reduce the various category quotas consistent with the estimated overharvest. While that action is not yet final, NMFS must still consider the implications of reduced quotas for various categories, including the Harpoon category. If both the 2024 and 2025 U.S. adjusted quotas are exceeded, under ICCAT requirements, the United States could be required to pay back 125 percent of the second year's (2025) overharvest in 2026. Based on that consideration and the current landings data, as well as average catch rates and anticipated fishing conditions, NMFS has determined that the Harpoon category quota is projected to be reached shortly, and that the Harpoon category should be closed. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant ( i.e., measuring 73 inches (185 cm) CFL or greater) BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the Harpoon category must cease at 11:30 a.m. local time on July 2, 2025. Should NMFS determine that reasonable fishing opportunities are available at a later date, NMFS may reopen the fishery. At this time, NMFS is closing the Harpoon category BFT fishery for the remainder of the Harpoon category season, which ends November 15, 2025, and thus for the year. The Harpoon category will reopen automatically on June 1, 2026, for the 2026 fishing year. This action applies to Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category (commercial) permitted vessels, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1).

Monitoring and Reporting
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely. Per § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A), dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustments, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer-reporting requirement, Harpoon category vessel owners are required per § 635.5(a)(4) to report their own catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing https://hmspermits.noaa.gov, using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling 888-872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time).
Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may access https://hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

Classification
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 2025 quota for the Harpoon category is projected to be reached shortly. Delaying this action could result in BFT landings which would exceed the final 2025 Harpoon category quota, which may result in future potential quota reductions for other BFT categories or the 2026 Harpoon category quota, depending on the magnitude of a potential Harpoon category overharvest. 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 and closure 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.

Authority:
16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Kelly Denit,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
90
127
Monday, July 7, 2025
Proposed Rules
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 107
RIN 3245-AI14
Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Regulatory Amendments

AGENCY:
U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION:
Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:
The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA” or “Agency”) is proposing to modify or remove from the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) regulations that are obsolete, inefficient, or otherwise unnecessarily impede the licensing of small business investment companies (“SBICs”). Many of the regulations SBA is proposing to remove apply to the repealed Section 301(d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and certain other types of SBICs that SBA no longer licenses, such as Participating Securities SBICs and Early Stage SBICs. The removal of these regulations will assist the public by simplifying SBA's regulations in the CFR. In addition, SBA is proposing to amend its regulations applicable to subsequent fund applicants in order to streamline the licensing process for such applicants. SBA also seeks to remove certain barriers to investments in critical mineral extraction and processing and designated critical technologies. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found https://www.regulations.gov.

DATES:
Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments, identified by RIN: 3245-AI14, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments for Docket Number SBA-2025-0003.
• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Frank Salomone, Associate Administrator for the Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.
SBA will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (“CBI”), as defined in the User Notice at https://www.regulations.gov, please submit the information to Paul vanEyl, Director of Financial Policy, Office of Investment and Innovation, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416, or send an email to oii.policy@sba.gov with “RIN 3245-AI14 Proposed Rule” in the subject heading. Highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as confidential. SBA will review the information and make the final determination on whether it will publish the information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Policy: Frank Salomone, Associate Administrator of the Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, oii.policy@sba.gov, 771-233-1782. This phone number may also be reached by individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, or who have speech disabilities, through the Federal Communications Commission's TTY-Based Telecommunications Relay Service teletype service at 711.
Regulatory Comments/ Federal Register
Docket: Paul vanEyl, Director of Financial Policy, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, oii.policy@sba.gov, 202-257-5955. This phone number can also be reached by individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, or who have speech disabilities, through the Federal Communications Commission's TTY-Based Telecommunications Relay Service teletype service at 711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

A. Small Business Investment Company Program
SBA's SBIC program is designed to enhance small business access to capital by stimulating and supplementing “the flow of private equity capital and long-term loan funds which small-business concerns need for the sound financing of their business operations and for their growth, expansion, and modernization, and which are not available in adequate supply.” Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 661, et seq. (the “Act”). The SBIC program's primary objective is to “improve and stimulate the national economy in general and the small-business segment thereof in particular.” Id.
SBICs are privately owned and managed investment funds, licensed and regulated by SBA, that use capital raised from private investors (what SBA generally refers to as “Regulatory Capital”) to make equity and debt investments in qualifying small businesses. SBICs pursue investments in a broad range of industries, geographic areas, and stages of investment. SBA licenses many SBICs to issue SBA-guaranteed debentures (“Debentures”), typically with a 10-year term, the repayment of which is guaranteed by SBA using the full faith and credit of the United States. SBA typically authorizes SBICs to issue Debentures up to an amount not exceeding $175 million for individual SBICs and $350 million for SBICs under Common Control (as defined in 13 CFR 107.50).
From the inception of the SBIC program to December 31, 2024, SBICs have invested approximately $139.2 billion in approximately 198,199 financings to small businesses. In fiscal year 2024, SBICs invested $7.26 billion in 1,014 small businesses. As of September 30, 2024, there were a total of 318 licensed and operating SBICs with total Regulatory Capital of approximately $25.7 billion. In addition, as of September 30, 2024, SBA had guaranteed outstanding Debentures or had outstanding commitments to guarantee Debentures to SBICs in the approximate aggregate amount of $21.1 billion.

B. Part 107, Small Business Investment Companies
SBA is proposing to remove from the CFR seventeen regulations and two definitions that are no longer necessary, because the rules reflect statutes that have been repealed, do not have any current or future applicability, or are otherwise inefficient or unnecessary. Specifically, SBA is proposing to remove eight regulations relating to the “Subsidized Leverage,” which was formerly issued by Specialized Small Business Investment Companies (“SSBICs”) (also referred to as “Section 301(d) Licensees”). Prior to 1996, Section 301(d) of the Act authorized SBA to issue licenses to SSBICs, which were required to invest “solely in small business concerns which will contribute to a well-balanced national economy by facilitating ownership in such concerns by persons whose participation in the free enterprise system is hampered because of social or economic disadvantages[.]” Section 301(d) was repealed by Section 208(b)(3)(A) of Public Law 104-208, enacted September 30, 1996 (the “Improvement Act of 1996”). Section 208(b)(3)(B) of the Improvement Act of 1996 provided, “[t]he repeal under subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to require the Administrator to cancel, revoke, withdraw, or modify any license issued under section 301(d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 before the date of enactment of this Act.” As a result, no new SSBIC licenses have been issued since October 1, 1996, but existing SSBICs have been allowed to remain in the program. The Improvement Act of 1996 also repealed the special kinds of financial assistance ( i.e., “Subsidized Leverage”) that SBA previously made available to SSBICs under former Section 303(c) of the Act. Such Subsidized Leverage was previously available to SSBICs in the form of Debentures with an interest rate subsidy or certain types of preferred stock known as “Preferred Securities” with a specified dividend. Although Subsidized Leverage can no longer be issued, the Improvement Act of 1996 did not require SSBICs to prepay or redeem such Subsidized Leverage prior to its scheduled maturity. Approximately five SSBICs are currently operating, but no Subsidized Leverage remains outstanding, so SBA proposes to remove the regulations related to Subsidized Leverage. The SSBICs remaining in the program will not be impacted by the changes proposed in this rule and, if eligible, those SSBICs may continue to apply to issue standard Debentures.
SBA is proposing to remove three regulations and one definition relating to Participating Securities (as defined in 13 CFR 107.50) and SBICs that issued Participating Securities (“Participating Securities SBICs”). The fees payable by Participating Securities SBICs were not sufficient to cover the projected net losses of the Participating Securities program and no funds have been appropriated for this program in over 20 years. As a result, since October 1, 2004, SBA has not issued new commitments for Participating Securities. There are no Participating Securities SBICs operating in the program, and accordingly the changes proposed in this rule will not impact any Participating Securities SBICs.
SBA is proposing to remove one regulation relating to a category of SBICs created in 2012 by regulation that required to invest at least fifty percent of their capital in early-stage small businesses (“Early Stage SBICs”). The final rule (77 FR 25042, April 27, 2012) defining this category of Early Stage SBICs stated that SBA's intent was to license Early Stage SBICs over a 5-year period (fiscal years 2012 through 2016). SBA published a rule on September 19, 2016 (81 FR 64075) proposing to make the Early Stage SBIC initiative a permanent part of the SBIC program, but withdrew the proposed rule on June 11, 2018 (83 FR 26875) because, among other things, few qualified funds applied to the Early Stage SBIC initiative and the comments to the proposed rule did not demonstrate broad support for a permanent Early Stage SBIC program. SBA proposes to remove the regulations related to the licensing of Early Stage SBICs, since SBA is no longer licensing these funds. The removal of these regulations will not impact Early Stage SBICs remaining in the program.
SBA is proposing to remove or revise thirty regulations and four definitions that are duplicative, redundant, or otherwise inefficient or unnecessary. In connection with this rulemaking, SBA proposes certain non-substantive amendments to thirteen regulations and two definitions to remove internal references to the removed regulations, streamline certain regulations addressing the same concept to improve efficiencies, or make certain other clarifying changes.
SBA is further proposing to remove three eligibility requirements for subsequent fund applicants operating an active SBIC license and further clarify through revision two eligibility requirements pertaining to SBIC applicants under Common Control with one or more SBICs that wish to be considered under an “Expedited Subsequent Fund Evaluation Process.”

C. Comments Received in Response to Request for Information
On August 15, 2017, SBA published in the Federal Register a request for information seeking input from the public on identifying which of the Agency's regulations should be repealed, replaced, or modified because they are obsolete, unnecessary, ineffective, or burdensome. (82 FR 38617). On October 13, 2017, SBA extended the comment period. (82 FR 47645). SBA has reviewed the comments submitted by the public in response to that request. Further, in an effort to obtain additional feedback from SBIC program stakeholders, SBA held a series of roundtables with SBICs, third-party service providers, and investors on May 22, 2018, July 17, 2018, and August 7, 2018, respectively.
In this rule, SBA is proposing to remove certain regulations that commenters suggested removing— e.g., certain Participating Securities SBIC and Early Stage SBIC regulations—and proposing to remove certain other regulations that SBA believes will have broad support among program participants.
On September 30, 2020, SBA issued a proposed rulemaking to remove from the CFR those regulations which reflect statutory provisions that have been repealed, do not have any current or future applicability, or are otherwise inefficient or unnecessary. SBA received no comments from the public by the due date of November 30, 2020. The proposed rulemaking complied with Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, both of which were revoked on January 20, 2021, through Executive Order 13992, Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation. SBA did not issue a final rulemaking to formally remove the proposed regulations from the CFR. SBA has identified many of those regulations proposed for elimination under this rulemaking.

D. Executive Order 14219
On February 19, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative, which, among other objectives, is intended to rescind unlawful regulations, ensure regulations that impose significant costs upon private parties are outweighed by public benefits, and eliminate regulations that impose undue burdens on small business and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship. SBA believes the removal of the regulations identified herein along with clarifying provisions would comply with Executive Order 14219. Further, such revisions would make part 107 less confusing and less burdensome for the reader. SBA quantifies the amount of cost savings that may result from this rulemaking in the Executive Order 14219 discussion in Section III below.

E. Executive Order 14241 and Executive Order 14272
President Trump signed Executive Order 14241 and Executive Order 14272 on March 20, 2025, and April 15, 2025, respectively. These Executive Orders express the vital importance of critical minerals, rare earth elements, and their derivative products to the U.S. economy and national security and state that it is imperative “that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent.” This rulemaking is intended to facilitate the domestic exploration, extraction, and processing of critical minerals and rare earth elements by creating an exception to the project finance restrictions within Part 107 for companies involved in certain critical mineral projects.

II. Section by Section Analysis

A. Section 107.50—Definition of Terms
SBA is proposing to revise the definition of “Associate” in 13 CFR 107.50 to remove paragraph (11) of that definition. This paragraph states that if any SBIC has an ownership interest in another SBIC, then those two SBICs will be deemed Associates of each other. SBA notes that with the exception of a Reinvestor SBIC (as defined in 13 CFR 107.720(a)(2)) investing in a Non-Leveraged SBIC (as defined in 13 CFR 107.50), SBICs are generally prohibited from investing in another SBIC. Further, SBA notes that an “Associate” relationship between a Reinvestor SBIC and a Non-Leveraged SBIC may be appropriately determined by paragraphs (1) through (10) of the Associate definition. Accordingly, SBA proposes to remove paragraph (11) from this definition.
SBA is proposing to amend 13 CFR 107.50 to include the defined term “Critical Minerals,” to include the critical minerals, rare earth elements, and related substances identified as industrial priorities in Executive Order 14241 and Executive Order 14272, which are discussed above.
SBA is proposing to add the definition of “Critical Technology” to identify a type of investment that will be permitted under an additional exception to the project finance restriction if such investment is made by an SBICCT.
SBA is proposing to revise the definition of “Debenture Rate” to reflect that the interest rate for Debentures issued by SBICs will be published on the SBIC website (as defined in 13 CFR 107.50). SBA notes that this change is consistent with SBA's historical practice and will provide greater transparency to the program.
SBA is proposing to revise the definition of “Early Stage SBIC” in 13 CFR 107.50 to remove the reference to 13 CFR 107.310, because SBA is proposing to remove that regulation. SBA is further proposing to revise the definition to clarify that an Early Stage SBIC is one that was licensed in connection with SBA's Early Stage SBIC initiative. In addition, SBA is proposing to revise the definition to reference redesignated 13 CFR 107.1810(f)(10) rather than current 13 CFR 107.1810(f)(11) but is not proposing any substantive changes to the definition.
SBA is proposing to delete the definition of “Preferred Securities,” as “Preferred Securities” were issued solely by 301(d) Licensees issued prior to 1996. The 301(d) program was discontinued by Public Law 104-208, effective September 30, 1996. Although a small number of 301(d) licenses remain in effect, there are no outstanding “Preferred Securities,” and there is no authorization by statute for the issuance of additional “Preferred Securities.”
SBA is proposing to amend 13 CFR 107.50 to include the defined term “Prior Fund” applicable to those fund applicants applying for the “Expedited Subsequent Fund” evaluation process.
SBA proposes to include the term “SBICCT” to identify those SBICs licensed and designated as Critical Technology Small Business Investment Companies, pursuant to the March 2, 2023, Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Defense Office of Strategic Capital and SBA's Office of Investment and Innovation or any subsequent or successor memorandum, agreement, or regulation.
SBA is proposing to amend 13 CFR 107.50 to remove the definition of “Venture Capital Financing.” This definition is utilized primarily in reference to 13 CFR 107.1160. However, SBA is proposing to remove 13 CFR 107.1160 and accompanying references to 13 CFR 107.1160. Accordingly, this definition is no longer necessary.

B. Section 107.120—Special Rules for a Section 301(d) Licensee Owned by Another Licensee
This regulation currently addresses the requirements for ownership of an SSBIC by another SBIC. SBA no longer issues SSBIC licenses, and no SBIC has utilized the structure authorized under this regulation in the recent history of the program. Further, because Subsidized Leverage is no longer available to SSBICs, the structure under this regulation provides little to no benefit to an SBIC, economic or otherwise. For that reason, SBA believes that no SBIC will seek to be structured in the form authorized under this regulation going forward and, accordingly, proposes to remove this section.

C. Section 107.160—Special Rules for Licensees Formed as Limited Partnerships
This regulation currently provides for special rules applicable to SBICs formed as limited partnerships. SBA is proposing to remove certain requirements applicable to an SBIC's general partner pursuant to this regulation. Specifically, SBA is proposing to amend paragraph (b)(2) of 13 CFR 107.160 to remove the reference to 13 CFR 107.585 applying to an entity general partner of an SBIC and amend paragraph (d) of 13 CFR 107.160 solely to remove references to 13 CFR 107.460 and 107.680. SBA notes that SBA is proposing to remove 13 CFR 107.460 as part of this rulemaking and 107.680 does not include the term Licensee.

D. Section 107.250—Exclusion of Stock Options Issued by Licensee From Management Expenses
This regulation currently provides that stock options issued by any SBIC are not considered compensation and do not count as part of an SBIC's management expenses. Substantially all SBICs are formed as limited partnerships that do not issue stock options. Further, Management Expenses are expressly defined in current 13 CFR 107.520(a), and that definition does not include stock options. Accordingly, the few SBICs formed as corporations do not rely on current 13 CFR 107.250. SBA proposes to remove this section, because it is no longer necessary.

E. Section 107.300—License Application Form and Fee
This regulation currently sets forth the licensing process for an SBIC including the initial review of a SBIC applicant, final licensing phase, initial and final licensing fees, resubmission penalty fees and inflation adjustments. SBA proposes to modify paragraph (a) of 13 CFR 107.300 to clarify applicants meeting criteria described in 13 CFR 107.305(e) are entitled to an “Expedited Subsequent Fund Evaluation Process” and further that SBIC applicants that are currently managing an active SBIC (“Subsequent Fund applicants”) may be permitted to file a complete “Short-Form” Subsequent Fund MAQ application. While such Subsequent Fund applicants may be permitted to file a Short-Form MAQ to streamline their licensing application, in order to adequately evaluate a Subsequent Fund applicant's management team and licensing application as required by the Act, SBA reserves the right to request that a Subsequent Fund applicant submit the full, standard MAQ form and/or provide other information if SBA is unable to adequately evaluate an SBIC applicant's application in accordance with the provisions of the Act and its implementing regulations.

F. Section 107.305—Evaluation of License Applicants
This regulation currently sets forth the evaluation factors for license applicants. SBA proposes to modify paragraph (e) of 13 CFR 107.305 to modify and streamline the criteria for license applicants to be eligible for an “Expedited Subsequent Fund Evaluation Process,” while ensuring that SBA has appropriate benchmarks in place to properly evaluate such SBIC applicants.

G. Section 107.310—When and How To Apply for Licensing as an Early Stage SBIC
This regulation currently sets forth the application procedures for Early Stage SBIC applicants. As described above, SBA no longer licenses Early Stage SBICs. Therefore, SBA proposes to remove this section.

H. Section 107.460—Restrictions on Common Control or Ownership of Two (or More) Licensees
This regulation currently provides that certain individuals and entities may not, without SBA's prior written approval, exercise control over, or have a greater than ten percent beneficial ownership interest in, two or more SBICs. This regulation is duplicative of the requirements in other SBA regulations applicable to SBICs. Specifically, sections 107.160, 107.400, and 107.410 require SBA prior approval for any individual or entity to exercise Control (as defined in 13 CFR 107.50), operate as a principal, officer, director or manager of, or otherwise have a greater than ten percent beneficial ownership interest in, any individual SBIC. Accordingly, this section is not necessary, and SBA proposes to remove it.

I. Section 107.507—Violations Based on False Filings and Nonperformance of Agreements With SBA
SBA is proposing to amend this regulation to remove the reference to the term “Preferred Security” in 107.507(a). No Section 301(d) Licensee currently has any form of Subsidized Leverage outstanding, and, as a result of the Improvement Act of 1996 discussed above, no Section 301(d) Licensee is authorized to issue or draw Subsidized Leverage in the future. SBA is not proposing any substantive changes to 13 CFR 107.507.

J. Section 107.720—Small Businesses That May Be Ineligible for Financing
SBA is proposing to amend paragraph (d) of section 107.720 in order to clarify that this paragraph does not prohibit investments in small businesses engaged in long-term projects that either involve the extraction, conversion, or processing of Critical Minerals identified as strategically important under Executive Order 14241 (“Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production,” March 20, 2025) and Executive Order 14272 (“Ensuring National Security and Economic Resilience Through Section 232 Actions on Processed Critical Minerals and Derivative Products,” April 15, 2025) or by SBICCTs in defined Critical Technologies.

K. Sections 107.830—Minimum Duration/Term of Financing, 107.835—Exceptions to Minimum Duration/Term of Financing, and 107.840—Maximum Term of Financing
13 CFR 107.830 (Minimum duration/term of financing), 13 CFR 107.835 (Exceptions to minimum duration/term of Financing), and 13 CFR 107.840 (Maximum term of Financing) address the term of financing permissible in the SBIC program—the minimum term and maximum term, respectively, and exceptions thereto. SBA believes that having three regulations that address the same concept is inefficient. Accordingly, SBA is proposing to streamline these regulations by moving the substance of sections 107.835 and 107.840 into section 107.830 and proposes to remove sections 107.835 and 107.840. SBA proposes a minor clarification to the exceptions set forth in 107.835(d) but does not intend any substantive changes to the minimum or maximum term of financing or exceptions thereto permitted under the regulations.

L. Section 107.1130—Leverage Fees and Annual Charges
This regulation identifies the fees and other charges associated with SBA-guaranteed Leverage. Paragraph (d) of 13 CFR 107.1130 identifies the Annual Charge (as defined in 13 CFR 107.50) applicable to SBICs with outstanding Debentures, and further includes a minimum Annual Charge, currently set at twenty (20) basis points for fiscal year 2025 and increasing to a minimum of forty (40) basis points in fiscal year 2029. SBA is proposing to revise paragraph (d) of 13 CFR 107.1130 to provide SBA with flexibility to make a determination as to the Annual Charge necessary to reduce to zero the cost to SBA of purchasing and guaranteeing Debentures pursuant to the Act. SBA does not expect this change to have any substantive impact on SBICs, as the average annual charge over the last twenty years is fifty-seven (57) basis points and the Annual Charge minimum floor (applicable to fiscal year 2029) shall not exceed forty (40) basis points.

M. Section 107.1140—Licensee's Acceptance of SBA Remedies Under §§ 107.1800 Through 107.1820
This regulation provides that all SBICs issuing Leverage after April 25, 1994, automatically agree to the terms and conditions in sections 107.1800 through 107.1820, as they exist at the time of issuance. The section is duplicative of 13 CFR 107.1800, 13 CFR 107.1810 and 13 CFR 107.1820. SBA proposes to remove the section because it is unnecessary. For the avoidance of doubt, all outstanding Leverage remains subject to 13 CFR 107.1800 through 107.1820, as applicable.

N. Section 107.1160—Maximum Amount of Leverage for a Section 301(d) Licensee
This regulation currently addresses Subsidized Leverage for Section 301(d) Licensees. No Section 301(d) Licensee currently has any form of Subsidized Leverage outstanding, and, as a result of the Improvement Act of 1996 discussed above, no Section 301(d) Licensee is authorized to issue or draw Subsidized Leverage in the future. SBA proposes to remove this section, because it is no longer necessary.

O. Section 107.1170—Maximum Amount of Participating Securities for Any Licensee
This regulation addresses the maximum amount of Participating Securities an SBIC may issue. As discussed above, since October 1, 2004, SBA has not been able to issue new commitments for Participating Securities. Because this section is no longer necessary, SBA proposes to remove it.

P. Sections 107.1400—107.1450 Preferred Securities Leverage—Section 301(d) Licensees
Sections 107.1400 through 107.1450 currently address Subsidized Leverage for Section 301(d) Licensees. No Section 301(d) Licensee currently has any form of Subsidized Leverage outstanding, and, as a result of the Improvement Act of 1996 discussed above, no Section 301(d) Licensee is authorized to issue or draw Subsidized Leverage in the future. SBA proposes to remove these sections, because they are no longer necessary.

Q. Section 107.1560—Distributions by Licensee—Required Distributions to Private Investors and SBA
SBA is proposing to amend this regulation to remove references to the term “Preferred Securities.” No Section 301(d) Licensee currently has any form of Subsidized Leverage outstanding, and, as a result of the Improvement Act of 1996 discussed above, no Section 301(d) Licensee is authorized to issue or draw Subsidized Leverage in the future. SBA is not proposing any substantive changes to 13 CFR 107.1560.

R. Section 107.1585—Exchange of Debentures for Participating Securities
This regulation currently addresses the requirements of an exchange of Debentures for Participating Securities. No Participating Securities will be issued in the future. This section, therefore, is obsolete, and SBA proposes to remove it.

S. Section 107.1590—Special Rules for Companies Licensed on or Before March 31, 1993
This regulation applies to SBICs licensed on or before March 31, 1993, that apply to issue Participating Securities. No SBIC may apply to issue Participating Securities and this rule does not have any current applicability. SBA proposes to remove this section.

T. Section 107.1700 Transfer by SBA of Its Interest in Licensee's Leverage Security
SBA is proposing to amend this regulation to remove reference to the term “Preferred Security” in the first sentence. No Section 301(d) Licensee currently has any form of Subsidized Leverage outstanding, and, as a result of the Improvement Act of 1996 discussed above, no Section 301(d) Licensee is authorized to issue or draw Subsidized Leverage in the future. SBA is not proposing any substantive changes to 13 CFR 107.1700.

U. Section 107.1810—Events of Default and SBA's Remedies for Licensee's Noncompliance With Terms of Debentures
SBA proposes to remove 13 CFR 107.1810(f)(9) in its entirety, which is an event of default based solely on the failure to satisfy the investment ratios required under 13 CFR 107.1160(c), a regulation which SBA is proposing to remove in this rulemaking.

V. Section 107.1820—Conditions Affecting Issuers of Preferred Securities and/or Participating Securities
SBA is proposing to revise the caption of 13 CFR 107.1820 to remove the reference to Preferred Securities. SBA is further proposing to amend 13 CFR 107.1820(a) to remove all references to Preferred Securities. In addition, SBA is proposing to amend 13 CFR 107.1820(e)(9) to remove the events of default triggered by noncompliance with 13 CFR 107.1160, a regulation which SBA is proposing to remove in this rulemaking.

III. Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 14219, 12988, and 13132, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C., Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612)

A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this proposed rule constitutes a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. An analysis of the estimated cost savings of deregulation proposed in this rule is contained in the section below on Executive Order 14219. SBA considered alternatives to each regulation when complying with Executive Order 14219 to eliminate regulations that impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship. SBA has proposed only those regulations that are obsolete, inefficient, or otherwise unnecessarily impede the licensing of SBICs. The regulations identified along with clarifying provisions will make part 107 less confusing and less burdensome for the reader. When finalized, this proposed rule is expected to result in an annualized net savings total of approximately $42,000 at a seven percent discount rate.

B. Executive Orders 14241 and 14272
SBA is also proposing regulatory changes to clarify and provide certainty for SBICs who may wish to make certain investments in Critical Minerals related to Executive Order 14241 and Executive Order 14272, discussed above. SBICs have historically participated in such financings, but many SBIC managers view SBA's regulations on project finance restrictions to include the exploration, extraction, and processing of critical minerals and rare earth elements as ineligible financings. SBA considered alternatives to complying with Executive Order 14241 and Executive Order 14272 by proposing regulations expressly permitting SBIC investments in critical minerals, rare earth elements, and their derivative products as vitally important to the U.S. economy and national security. However, doing so would've increased the number of new regulations, which would be inefficient and in opposition to Executive Order 14219, as SBICs are not expressly prohibited from such investing. SBA's approach in this proposed rule is to seek minor clarifications to existing regulations to remove perceived barriers and provide SBICs with more clarity and certainty in a regulated environment.
Over the past ten years SBICs have invested an estimated total of $305.6 million in small businesses focused on Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction, representing an overall 0.5 percent of the program. Removing investments related to oil and gas and the mining and quarrying of materials that are not Critical Minerals, SBA estimates the overall SBIC portfolio concentration in Critical Minerals to be less than 0.1 percent of the entire program. SBA does not anticipate an outsized increase to the current percentage of the overall program, and therefore the proposed changes would not pose significant risk to portfolio concentration. Current SBIC Licensees have management teams possessing particular industry knowledge and experience related to their proposed business plans. SBA will mitigate any future risk posed by SBIC applicants wishing to focus on Critical Minerals during the licensing process.

C. Executive Order 14219
This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 14219 deregulatory action with an annualized net savings total of approximately $42,000 at a seven percent discount rate, discounted relative to 2024, over a perpetual time horizon. This rule would remove information that is redundant or concerns obsolete programs, which would reduce confusion around whether these programs still exist and simplify the reading of the regulations to improve efficiency.
There are currently 318 operating SBIC licensees, of which approximately 40 are newly licensed to the program over the last year. Newly licensed SBICs are expected to read the program regulations in their entirety during the first year of operation. Established SBICs and SBIC counsel familiar with the regulations are expected to revisit sections of regulations pertaining to specific occurrences during the life of the SBIC, and accordingly such instances are included in-part in these calculations to account for those certain situations. These calculations assume that 25 percent of all SBIC licensees (80) and other SBIC stakeholders, including counsel to SBICs, (20) will read the regulations in their entirety and that they will save an estimated 4 hours each from reading less burdensome and confusing regulations, because the regulations will no longer contain obsolete information. This time is valued at $112.02 per hour- the mean hourly wage for Financial and Investment Analysts, and at $175.20 per hour- the mean hourly wage for Lawyers based on 2024 Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) data, including 100 percent more for benefits and overhead adjustment. This produces an estimated total savings per year of approximately $50,000.
In the first year this rule is published, it is expected that 25 percent of all SBIC licensees (80) and other SBIC stakeholders, including counsel, (20) will read this Federal Register notice, which is estimated to take 2 hours to read. Assuming a weighted average of $124.66 per hour, the estimated one-time cost in the first year will be approximately $25,000. This estimated cost is not expected to continue into subsequent years.
The table below displays the costs and savings of this rule over the first two years it is published, with the savings and costs in the second year expected to continue in perpetuity, providing a total annualized net savings of approximately $42,000 at a seven percent discount rate or approximately $500 per SBIC.
Schedule of Costs/(Savings), Current Dollars
| Savings | Costs | Net total $
Year 1 | (256 hours) ($50,000) | 200 hours $25,000 | ($25,000)
Years 2+ | (256 hours) ($50,000) | 0 hours $0.00 | (50,000)
Net Total Savings | | | ($75,000)

D. Executive Order 12988
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

E. Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive Order. As such it does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Ch. 35
SBA has determined that this proposed rule does not affect any existing collection of information and does not propose any new collection of information.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” that will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
There are currently 318 operating SBIC licensees, which represents the universe of small entities impacted by this proposed rule to remove regulations that are no longer necessary, because they are either redundant, inefficient, or obsolete. These changes will afford these entities more certainty on how to operate their business in a regulated environment, and the cost savings to time spent on regulations will provide more time investing in small businesses. The total annualized net savings to these SBIC licensees is estimated at $74,793.60 in current dollars, as quantified in the Executive Order 14219 discussion above.
Therefore, SBA hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBA invites comments from the public on this certification.

List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 107
Investment companies, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR part 107 as follows:

PART 107—SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANIES
1. The authority citation for part 107 is revised to read as follows:

Authority:
15 U.S.C. 662, 681-687, 687b-h, 687k-m.
2. Amend § 107.50 by deleting paragraph (11) of the Associate definition, deleting the definition of “Preferred Securities” and “Venture Capital Financing,” revising the definitions of “Debenture Rate” and “Early Stage SBIC,” and adding the defined terms “Critical Minerals,” “Critical Technology,” “Prior Fund” and “SBICCT” to read as follows:
§ 107.50
Definition of terms.
* * * * *
Critical Minerals has the meaning set forth in 13 CFR 107.720(d).
* * * * *
Critical Technology has the meaning set forth at 10 U.S.C. 4801(6) and includes technologies, components, and processes duly designed by the U.S. Department of Defense consistent with that provision for investment by SBICCTs.
* * * * *
Debenture Rate means the interest rate, as published from time to time on the SBIC website, for ten-year debentures issued by Licensees and funded through public sales of certificates bearing SBA's guarantee. User or guarantee fees, if any, paid by a Licensee are not considered in determining the Debenture Rate.
* * * * *
Early Stage SBIC means a Section 301(c) Partnership Licensee, licensed pursuant to SBA's Early Stage initiative, in which at least 50 percent of all Loans and Investments (in dollars) must be made to Small Businesses that are “early stage” companies at the time of the Licensee's initial Financing (see also § 107.1810(f)(10)). For the purposes of this definition, an “early stage” company is one that has never achieved positive cash flow from operations in any fiscal year.
* * * * *
Prior Fund has the meaning set forth in 13 CFR 107.305(e).
* * * * *
SBICCT means a Critical Technology Small Business Investment Company, licensed and so designated pursuant to the March 2, 2023, Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Defense Office of Strategic Capital and SBA's Office of Investment and Innovation or any subsequent or successor memorandum, agreement, or regulation.
* * * * *
§ 107.120
[Removed and Reserved]
3. Remove and reserve § 107.120.
4. Amend § 107.160 by revising the second sentence of paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:
§ 107.160
Special rules for Licensees formed as limited partnerships.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) An Entity General Partner is subject to the same examination and reporting requirements as a Licensee under section 310(b) of the Act. The restrictions and obligations imposed upon a Licensee by §§ 107.1800 through 107.1820, and 107.30, 107.410 through 107.450, 107.470, 107.475, 107.500, 107.510, 107.600, 107.680, 107.690 through 107.692, 107.865, and 107.1910 apply also to an Entity General Partner of a Licensee.
(d) * * * The term Licensee, as used in §§ 107.30, includes all of the Licensee's Control Persons. * * *
* * * * *
§§ 107.250
[Removed and Reserved]
5. Remove and reserve § 107.250.
6. Amend § 107.300 by revising the third sentence in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 107.300
License application form and fee.
* * * * *
(a) Initial review. SBIC applicants must submit a Management Assessment Questionnaire (“MAQ”) and the Initial Licensing Fee, as defined in paragraph (c) of this section. Any applicants whose management team currently manages an active Licensee may submit a Subsequent Fund MAQ, provided that: (i) SBA retains discretion to require that such applicant submit the standard MAQ or request additional information if SBA is unable to properly evaluate an applicant under the factors required by the Act and described in 13 CFR 107.305; and (ii) only those applicants meeting all of the criteria described in § 107.305(e) are entitled to an “Expedited Subsequent Fund Evaluation Process.”
* * * * *
7. Amend § 107.305 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 107.305
Evaluation of license applicants.
* * * * *
(e) Subsequent fund applicants. Applicants operating an active Licensee that meet the following eligibility criteria may apply under an “Expedited Subsequent Fund” evaluation process. Should an applicant fulfill and formally attest to meeting all of the following eligibility criteria, the applicant may apply for an “Expedited Subsequent Fund” evaluation process:
(1) Consistent Strategy and Fund Size. The applicant's targeted Regulatory Capital is less than or equal to 133 percent of the Regulatory Capital (accounting for inflation adjustments) of the most recently licensed Licensee managed by the applicant's management team (the “Prior Fund”). The applicant's investment strategy and asset class will be substantially the same as the Prior Fund.
(2) Clean Regulatory History. There are no major findings, significant “other matters,” or unresolved “other matters” related to Licensees managed by the principals of the applicant in the prior three (3) years or three (3) SBIC examinations (whichever period is longer).
(3) Consistent Limited Partner-General Partner Dynamics. No limited partner will represent more than fifty percent (50%) of the Regulatory Capital of the SBIC applicant or otherwise exercise Control with respect to the applicant unless such limited partner was a Control Person of the Prior Fund.
(4) Investment Performance Stability. The Prior Fund's net distributions to paid-in capital (DPI) and net total value to paid-in capital (TVPI) are at or above median vintage year and strategy performance benchmarks for the prior three quarters. The principals of the applicant are not managing a Licensee in default or with a Capital Impairment Percentage (CIP) equal to or exceeding 75 percent of the maximum permitted for that Licensee under 13 CFR 107.1830(c).
(5) Firm Stability. Subject to SBA's confirmation, no material changes to the broader firm, including any resignations, terminations, or retirements by members of the general partner, investment committee, broader investment team, or key finance and operations personnel. SBA retains the discretion to allow changes that were part of a routine and customary firm succession plan previously communicated in writing to SBA.
(6) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Criminal and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Background Check. Neither the applicant's sponsoring entity nor any of the principals of the applicant have an FBI criminal record that was not previously reviewed and cleared by SBA during the Prior Fund's licensing application, and none of the applicant's principals nor sponsoring entity have violated IRS or state tax regulations from the date of the Prior Fund's license issuance.
(7) No Outstanding or Unresolved Material Litigation Matters. No outstanding or unresolved litigation matters involving allegations of dishonesty, fraud, or breach of fiduciary duty or otherwise requiring a report under § 107.660(c) or (d) in connection with the Prior Fund, other Licensees managed by the applicant's principals, or any other person who was required by SBA to complete a personal history statement in connection with the license application.
(8) No Outstanding Tax Liens. There are no outstanding federal, state, or local tax liens on the applicant's principals, the Prior Fund, and/or the sponsoring entity of applicant.
§§ 107.310 and 107.460
[Removed and Reserved]
8. Remove and reserve §§ 107.310, and 107.460.
9. Amend § 107.507 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 107.507
Violations based on false filings and nonperformance of agreements with SBA.
* * * * *
(a) Nonperformance. Nonperformance of any of the requirements of any Debenture or Participating Security or of any written agreement with SBA.
* * * * *
10. Amend § 107.720 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 107.720
Small Businesses that may be ineligible for financing.
* * * * *
(d) Project Financing —
(1) General Rule. You are not permitted to finance a business if:
(i) The assets of the business are to be reduced or consumed, generally without replacement, as the life of the business progresses, and the nature of the business requires that a stream of cash payments be made to the business's financing sources, on a basis associated with the continuing sale of assets. Examples include real estate development projects and oil and gas wells; or
(ii) The primary purpose of the Financing is to fund production of a single item or defined limited number of items, generally over a defined production period, and such production will constitute the majority of the activities of the Small Business. Examples include motion pictures and electric generating plants.
(2) Exception. This paragraph (d) does not prohibit a Financing of a business conducting or engaged in one or more projects reasonably anticipated to have a duration exceeding 48 months and involving (i) the production, mining, extraction, or beneficiation of Critical Minerals, (ii) the conversion of Critical Mineral ores into oxides, oxide concentrates, metals, metal powders, or alloys, (iii) any other processing of Critical Minerals necessary for incorporation into semi-finished goods or final products, or (iv) in the case of a Financing by an SBICCT, a designated Critical Technology. For the purposes of this section, the term “Critical Minerals” means those minerals included in the “Critical Minerals List” published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) pursuant to section 7002(c) of the Energy Act of 2020, 30 U.S.C. 1606, at 87 FR 10381, or any subsequent such list, as well as uranium, copper, potash, gold, the 17 elements identified as rare earth elements by the Department of Energy (DOE) in the April 2020 publication titled “Critical Materials Rare Earths Supply Chain,” and any additional elements that either the USGS or DOE determines in any subsequent official report or publication should be considered rare earth elements.
* * * * *
11. Amend § 107.830 by revising the section heading, revising paragraph (a), inserting new paragraph (b), redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 107.830
Duration/term of financing.
(a) General rule. The duration/term of all your Financings must be for a minimum period of one year and the maximum term of any Loan or Debt Security Financing must be no longer than 20 years.
(b) Exceptions. You make may a Short-term Financing for a term less than one year if the Financing is:
(1) An interim Financing in contemplation of long-term Financing. The contemplated long-term Financing must be in an amount at least equal to the short-term Financing, and must be made by you alone or in participation with other investors; or
(2) For protection of your prior investment(s); or
(3) For the purpose of Financing a change of ownership under § 107.750. The total amount of such Financings may not exceed 20 percent of your Loans and Investments (at cost) at the end of any fiscal year; or
(4) For the purposes of aiding a Disadvantaged Business certified to perform a contract awarded under a Federal, State, or local government set-aside program.
(c) * * *
(d) * * *
§ 107.835
[Removed and Reserved]
12. Remove and reserve § 107.835
* * * * *
§ 107.840
[Removed and Reserved]
13. Remove and reserve § 107.840.
* * * * *
§ 107.1130
Leverage fees and Annual Charges
14. Amend § 107.1130 by revising the second sentence of paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * * Unless otherwise determined by SBA and published in the Federal Register , for Leverage issued pursuant to Leverage commitments approved on or after October 1, 2023, the Annual Charge, established and published, shall not be less than 0.10 percent per annum, subject to the following provisions:
* * * * *
§ 107.1140
[Removed and Reserved]
15. Remove and reserve § 107.1140.
§§ 107.1160, 107.1170, and 107.1400 through 107.1450
[Removed and Reserved]
16. Remove and reserve § 107.1160, 107.1170, and 107.1400 through 107.1450.
§ 107.1560
Distributions by Licensee—required Distributions to private investors and SBA.
17. Amend § 107.1560 by:
a. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
b. Deleting paragraph (g)(2);
c. Revising paragraph (g)(3);
d. Deleting paragraph (g)(4); and
e. Revising paragraph (g)(5).
The revision to read as follows:
§ 107.1560
Distributions by Licensee—required Distributions to private investors and SBA.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Distributions to SBA, or its designated agent or Trustee, reduce Retained Earnings Available for Distribution if they are applied as payments of Profit Participation (see paragraph (g) of this section). * * *
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) Second, as a redemption of Participating Securities in order of issue;
(4) Third, as the repayment of principal of any outstanding Debentures, with such repayment to be made into escrow on terms and conditions SBA determines.
* * * * *
§§ 107.1585 and 107.1590
[Removed and Reserved]
18. Remove and reserve § 107.1585 and 107.1590.
§ 107.1700
[Amended]
19. Amend § 107.1700 by revising the first sentence of the introductory paragraph to read as follows:
§ 107.1700
Transfer by SBA of its interest in Licensee's Leverage security.
Upon such conditions and for such consideration as it deems reasonable, SBA may sell, assign, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any Debenture, Participating Security, or other security held by or on behalf of SBA in connection with Leverage. * * *
* * * * *
§ 107.1800
[Amended]
20. Amend § 107.1800 by revising the second sentence of the introductory paragraph to read as follows:
§ 107.1800
Licensee's agreement to terms and conditions in §§ 107.1810 and 107.1820.
* * * * *
The terms, conditions and remedies in § 107.1810 apply to outstanding Debentures issued after April 25, 1994. The terms, conditions and remedies in § 107.1820 apply to outstanding Participating Securities issued after April 25, 1994, or if you have Earmarked Assets in your portfolio.
§ 107.1810
[Amended]
21. Amend § 107.1810 by removing paragraph (f)(9) and redesignating paragraphs (f)(10) through (f)(12) as (f)(9) through (f)(11).
22. Amend § 107.1820 by revising paragraph (a) and (e)(9) to read as follows:
§ 107.1820
Conditions affecting issuers of Participating Securities.
(a) Applicability of this section. This section applies if you have Participating Securities or have Earmarked Assets in your portfolio. Your Articles must include the provisions of this § 107.1820 as a condition to SBA's guarantee of Participating Securities and for as long as you own Earmarked Assets.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(9) Failure to meet investment requirements. You fail to make the amount of Equity Capital Investments required for Participating Securities (§ 107.1500(b)(4)), if applicable to you.
Kelly Loeffler,

Administrator.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2025-1354; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-00012-T]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes

AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 and ATR72 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an investigation indicating that an erroneous monitoring of the travel limitation unit (TLU) could occur when the airplane is flying above a certain speed as a result of the logic input from either air data computer (ADC) 1 or ADC2 input. This proposed AD would require modifying airplanes by installing one or two relays and associated wiring, and testing of the TLU monitoring logic. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 21, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1354; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• 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 ADs@easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1354.
• 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan Duong, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7362; email: 9-AVS-AIR-BACO-COS@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited
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 ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-1354; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-00012-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.
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 regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information
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 Jonathan Duong, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-362; email: 9-AVS-AIR-BACO-COS@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0004, dated January 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0004) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-400, ATR42-500, ATR72-101, ATR72-102, ATR72-201, ATR72-202, ATR72-211, ATR72-212, and ATR72-212A airplanes. Model ATR42-400 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that an ATR internal review of the TLU new avionics suite design identified an erroneous behavior of core processing module (CPM) 2, hosting the data concentration application (DCA) 2, that might affect the TLU command, monitoring, and indication. Further investigation results indicated that an erroneous monitoring of the TLU could occur when the airplane is flying above a certain speed due to the logic input from either ADC1 or ADC2 input.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address erroneous behavior of CPM 2, hosting the DCA 2, that could affect the TLU command, monitoring, and indication. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the rudder deflection not being limited at high airplane speed, which, if combined with a large rudder pedal input, could lead to the loss of control of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1354.

Material Incorporated by Reference Under 1 CFR Part 51
EASA AD 2025-0004 specifies procedures for modifying airplanes by installing one or two relays and associated wiring. EASA AD 2025-0004 also specifies procedures for an operational test of the TLU monitoring logic after the modification, a functional test of the rudder travel limiter unit, and obtaining and following instructions to correct any failed test. For airplanes on which a previous revision of the applicable service information has been accomplished, EASA AD 2025-0004 specifies accomplishing “Additional Work,” which consists of a functional test of the rudder travel limiter unit. 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 ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination
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.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0004 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information
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 2025-0004 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0004 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0004 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0004. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0004 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1354 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 43 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Estimated Costs for Required Actions
Labor cost | Parts cost | Cost per product | Cost on U.S. operators
Up to 15 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,275 | Up to $2,889 | Up to $4,164 | Up to $179,052.
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
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.

Authority for This Rulemaking
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.

Regulatory Findings
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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39 AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional: Docket No. FAA-2025-1354; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-00012-T.

(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by August 21, 2025.

(b) Affected ADs
None.

(c) Applicability
This AD applies to the ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0004, dated January 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0004).
(1) ATR42-500 airplanes.
(2) ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes.

(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by an investigation indicating that an erroneous monitoring of the travel limitation unit (TLU) could occur when the airplane is flying above a certain speed as a result of the logic input from either air data computer (ADC) 1 or ADC2 input. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which if not detected and corrected, could result in the rudder deflection not being limited at high airplane speed, which, if combined with a large rudder pedal input, could lead to the loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(g) Requirements
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 2025-0004.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2025-0004
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0004 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0004.
(3) Paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2025-0004 applies to all airplanes except for airplanes identified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2025-0004.
(4) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2025-0004 specifies “the additional work”, for this AD, replace that text with “the functional test of the rudder Travel Limiter Unit”.
(5) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0004 specifies “as required by paragraph (2) of this AD”, for this AD, replace that text with “as required by paragraphs (2) and (4) of this AD”.

(i) Additional AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD and email to: AMOC@faa.gov . Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Additional Information
For more information about this AD, contact Jonathan Duong, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7362; email: 9-AVS-AIR-BACO-COS@faa.gov.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference
(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 2025-0004, dated January 7, 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 ADs@easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
(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 www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov.
Issued on July 1, 2025.
Steven W. Thompson,

Acting Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2025-1355; Project Identifier AD-2025-00016-A]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Honda Aircraft Company LLC Airplanes

AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Honda Aircraft Company LLC (Honda) Model HA-420 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery of a gap between the trailing edge wing nut plates and leading edge aileron balance weights being less than the minimum required clearance. This proposed AD would require replacing the affected left and right aileron fixed balance weights with reduced geometry fixed balance weights. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 21, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov . Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1355; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For Honda Aircraft Company material identified in this proposed AD, contact Honda, 6430 Ballinger Road, Greensboro, NC 27410; phone: (336) 662-0246; website: hondajet.com .
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tuan Tran, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474-5522; email: 9-aso-atlaco-ads@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited
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 ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-1355; Project Identifier AD-2025-00016-A” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may revise this proposal because of those comments.
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 regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information
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 Tuan Tran, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background
The FAA was advised that, during a production quality assurance inspection, a gap between the trailing edge wing nut plates and leading edge aileron balance weights was discovered with less than the minimum required clearance on a Honda Model HA-420 airplane. Starting with airplane serial number 235, the wing trailing edge nut plates were relocated closer to the trailing edge to standardize the manufacturing process and improve interchangeability among different serial-numbered airplanes. Relocating these nut plates reduced the gap between the nut plates and the balance weights. This reduction could result in jamming or contact between the balance weights and the nut plates, negatively affecting flight and causing damage to the airplane. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the airplane.

FAA's Determination
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Material Incorporated by Reference Under 1 CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed Honda Aircraft Company Service Bulletin No. SB-420-27-011, Revision B, dated December 24, 2024. This material specifies procedures for replacing the affected left and right aileron fixed balance weights with reduced geometry fixed balance weights to ensure the minimum required clearances are maintained with the adjacent wing trailing edge panel fasteners.
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 ADDRESSES section.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Referenced Material.”

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Referenced Material
Honda SB No. SB-4-20-27-011, Revision B, specifies contacting Honda if proper aileron balance cannot be attained using adjustable balance weights, but this proposed AD would require using a procedure approved by the Manager, East Certification Branch, FAA.

Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 38 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Estimated Costs
Action | Labor cost | Parts cost | Cost per product | Cost on U.S. operators
Replace the left and right inboard and outboard fixed balance weights | 45 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,825 | $3,676 | $7,501 | $285,038
The instructions for repair could vary significantly from airplane to airplane if proper aileron balance cannot be attained using adjustable balance weights. The FAA has no way of determining the cost of this repair or the number of airplanes that may require repair.
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking
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.

Regulatory Findings
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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
Honda Aircraft Company LLC: Docket No. FAA-2025-1355; Project Identifier AD-2025-00016-A.

(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by August 21, 2025.

(b) Affected ADs
None.

(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Honda Aircraft Company LLC (Honda) Model HA-420 airplanes, serial numbers 42000172, 42000235 through 42000265 inclusive, and 42000267 through 42000272 inclusive, certificated in any category, with aileron balance weight part number HJ1-15751-152-003 or HJ1-15751-157-003 installed.

(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2710, Aileron Control System.

(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by the discovery that the gap between the trailing edge wing nut plates and leading edge aileron balance weights may be less than the minimum required clearance. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent jamming or contact between the balance weights and the nut plates. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(g) Required Actions
Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, replace the left and right aileron fixed balance weights in accordance with steps 3.0(3) through 3.0(8) of the Accomplishment Instructions in Honda Aircraft Company Service Bulletin No. SB-420-27-011, Revision B, dated December 24, 2024 (Honda SB No. SB-4-20-27-011, Revision B), except as provided in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD.
(1) Instead of discarding parts, you must remove those parts from service.
(2) This AD does not require returning parts to the manufacturer.
(3) Instead of contacting Honda if proper aileron balance cannot be attained using adjustable balance weights, this AD requires attaining proper aileron balance using a procedure approved by the Manager, East Certification Branch, FAA.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, East Certification Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the East Certification Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD and email to: AMOC@faa.gov .
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) For material that contains steps that are labeled as RC the provisions of paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

(i) Additional Information
For more information about this AD, contact Tuan Tran, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474-5522; email: 9-aso-atlaco-ads@faa.gov.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Honda Aircraft Company Service Bulletin No. SB-420-27-011, Revision B, dated December 24, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Honda Aircraft Company material identified in this AD, contact Honda, 6430 Ballinger Road, Greensboro NC 27410; phone: (336) 662-0246; website: hondajet.com .
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov .
Issued on July 1, 2025.
Steven W. Thompson,

Acting Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Parts 970 and 971
[Docket No. 250630-0118]
RIN 0648-BN96
Deep Seabed Mining: Revisions to Regulations for Exploration License and Commercial Recovery Permit Applications

AGENCY:
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

ACTION:
Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:
The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA or the Act) charges NOAA with the responsibility for issuing licenses for exploration and permits for commercial recovery of polymetallic nodules from the deep seabed in areas beyond national jurisdiction and promulgating regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. Some provisions of the regulations require updating to reflect significant technological and information changes since the initial regulations were promulgated in the 1980s. NOAA proposes to include a consolidated license and permit review process in a section of the regulations that was reserved for this purpose and make other changes.

DATES:
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by September 5, 2025. NOAA will hold one virtual public hearing on this proposed rule on a date, time, and virtual location to be determined, which will be published in the Federal Register and posted on NOAA's Deep Seabed Mining Website.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NOS-2025-0108 by electronic submission described below:
Electronic Submission: Submit all public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NOS-2025-0108 or go www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NOS-2025-0108 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a comment” icon on the right of that line. Comments should be addressed to Mr. Kerry Kehoe, Federal Consistency Specialist, Office for Coastal Management, NOAA. Attention: DSHMRA Proposed Rule Comments.
Mail: All comments must be submitted via electronic submission at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NOS-2025-0108; no written comments should be submitted by mail.
Instructions: Comments must be submitted by the above electronic method to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NOAA. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. Comments that are not related to the proposed rule or that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language will not be considered. All relevant comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information ( e.g., name, address) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NOAA will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NOS-2025-0108. A Regulatory Impact Analysis has been prepared for this proposed rule and is also available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NOS-2025-0108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kerry Kehoe, (240) 560-8518, kerry.kehoe@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
DSHMRA (30 U.S.C. 1401-1473) charges the NOAA Administrator with the responsibility for issuing to U.S. citizens licenses for exploration and permits for commercial recovery of polymetallic nodules from the deep seabed in areas beyond national jurisdiction. U.S. citizens must obtain appropriate licenses and permits from NOAA before undertaking deep seabed mining. ^1
^1 Mining activities within the U.S. outer continental shelf are governed by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331-1356c), which is administered by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management within the Department of the Interior. The term “U.S. outer continental shelf” includes the extended continental shelf in areas adjacent to the U.S. States and is limited to the exclusive economic zone in areas adjacent to any territory of the United States.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) regulates deep seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction for countries that are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The United States is a non-party to UNCLOS. Under U.S. law, NOAA may issue licenses and permits to U.S. citizens in areas beyond national jurisdiction under DSHMRA, provided all statutory and regulatory requirements are met.
On April 24, 2025, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14285, “Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources,” establishing policies to advance U.S. leadership in seabed mineral exploration and responsible commercial recovery.
DSHMRA, which was signed into law in 1980, requires the NOAA Administrator to promulgate regulations as necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. 30 U.S.C. 1468. NOAA published its DSHMRA exploration license regulations (15 CFR part 970) in 1981, and its commercial recovery permit regulations (15 CFR part 971) in 1989. As NOAA reasoned when proposing the commercial recovery permit regulations in 1986, priority of right is established through the licensing process, and the regulations provide that a permittee must be the holder of a valid exploration license in order to receive a commercial recovery permit (§ 971.103). At that time, the sequential nature of the licensing and permitting processes was dictated by the developmental state of deep seabed mining technology and the information required to prepare an application for commercial recovery. However, NOAA acknowledged that once the industry matured and gained experience from activities undertaken during site-specific exploration, circumstances may evolve that might allow later entrants to capitalize on the information gained by previous explorers and lessen the need for further exploration of previously explored areas. In such cases there may be a need for a consolidated license and permit review in which permit applicants could meet exploration license requirements to establish priority of right, and permit requirements, simultaneously. In 1986, consolidation of the two procedures was premature. However, NOAA included a reserved section (§ 971.214) for potential later development. See 51 FR 26794, 26796 (July 25, 1986).
As the agency anticipated, over the past decades there has been a vast improvement in the technological capability for deep seabed mining, and the industry has obtained a substantial amount of information from deep seabed exploration activities and expressed a readiness for commercial recovery.
For example, the development of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), deep sea sensors, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and other technology has substantially improved the ability to more efficiently map and explore the sea floor. These improvements in technological abilities are likely to continue or accelerate in the future.
At the same time, knowledge of the sea floor has also increased. Unlike when the regulations were first promulgated, today NOAA and many other entities operating under regimes other than DSHMRA have undertaken detailed mapping of areas of the seabed both within national boundaries and beyond national jurisdiction. In addition, industry has conducted scientific testing on polymetallic nodules, developed and tested new deep sea mining-relevant technology, and have gained scientific and technical expertise and experience in deep seabed mining exploration. This knowledge, experience, and expertise may now be leveraged by U.S. citizens operating under DSHMRA who are interested in pursuing commercial recovery of polymetallic nodules of the deep seabed in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
The need for regulatory changes were foreseen by NOAA in the 1980s when it published its proposed and final rules for the DSHMRA commercial recovery permits by reserving a section for a consolidated license and permit review process in which permit applicants could meet necessary exploration license requirements to establish priority of right and permit requirements simultaneously. See 15 CFR 971.214; 51 FR 26793, 26796. NOAA proposes to add that process as well as make changes to other obsolete sections of the license and permit regulations. This approach is consistent with DSHMRA, which does not require sequential licensing and permitting, and is in keeping with the Act's finding that “the present and future national interest of the United States requires the availability of hard mineral resources which is independent of the export policies of foreign nations,” 30 U.S.C. 1401(a)(3). The proposed changes do not alter the substantive standards to which applications would be held and include only technical changes to the regulatory text.
NOAA requests comments on this proposed rule. NOAA also requests comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), including the assessment of potential impacts to small businesses from the proposed fee amount and potential alternative fee amounts. NOAA also requests comment on the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) analysis, including whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency; whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, use, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

II. Explanation of Proposed Changes to the DSHMRA Regulations
§ 970.200(b) Place, form and copies. NOAA proposes to revise paragraph (b) to remove the requirement for mailing 30 hard copies, replace it with a requirement to submit electronically only, and remove addresses that are no longer valid. NOAA also proposes to add a requirement that applications must be formatted according to regulatory sections and topics. Formatting an application by the regulatory sections and topics will help ensure that an application contains the required information and will allow NOAA to complete its review of an application in an expeditious manner.
§ 970.209 Substantial compliance with application requirements. NOAA proposes to revise § 970.209 by making clarifying changes regarding substantial compliance and to reference the proposed § 971.214 consolidated license and permit procedure. While NOAA is not proposing changes regarding determining priority of right and payment of the administrative fee, NOAA notes that the payment of the administrative fee does not determine priority of right; instead, the submission date of the application that is found to be in substantial compliance determines priority of right under the terms of § 970.200(e).
§ 970.210 Reasonable time for full compliance. NOAA proposes to revise § 970.210 to reference the proposed § 971.214 consolidated license and permit procedure.
§ 971.200(b) Place, form and copies. NOAA proposes to revise paragraph (b) to remove the requirement for mailing 25 hard copies, replace it with a requirement to submit electronically, and remove addresses that are no longer valid. NOAA also proposes to add a sentence that applications must be formatted according to regulatory sections and topics. Formatting an application by the regulatory sections and topics will help ensure that an application contains the required information and will allow NOAA to complete its review of an application in an expeditious manner.
§ 971.214 Consolidated license and permit procedures. NOAA proposes to use this currently reserved section to add a process whereby U.S. citizens who are qualified for these consolidated procedures may concurrently apply for an exploration license and a commercial recovery permit. A U.S. citizen would be qualified to use these consolidated procedures if it can demonstrate that the applicant possesses the scientific, technical, and financial resources to pursue commercial recovery activities in an expeditious and diligent manner.
Under this proposed consolidated license and permit process, a qualified applicant would not submit two, sequential applications (one for the exploration license and one for the commercial recovery permit) but, rather, would submit one application for both the exploration license and commercial recovery permit at the same time that would meet the requirements of the new proposed § 970.214. The Administrator would then conduct a consolidated review through one process, not two separate reviews, and, where necessary, publish separate proposals to issue a license and permit; terms, conditions, and restrictions; and licenses and permits. ^2 The Administrator would provide an opportunity for public comment and could decide, to the extent practicable, hold a public hearing on the consolidated license and permit application. NOAA expects that the Administrator would likely prepare a single environmental impact statement (EIS) that would evaluate the impacts of both exploration activities and commercial recovery activities as opposed to separate EISs. However, there may be situations in which two EISs are appropriate. See 30 U.S.C. 1419(d).
^2 As under the existing regulations, and pursuant to DSHMRA, priority of right shall be based on “the chronological order in which license applications which are in substantial compliance with the requirements established under subsection (a)(2) of this section are filed with the Administrator.” 30 U.S.C. 1413(b).
The Administrator would issue the exploration license and commercial recovery permit at the same time thereby confirming the priority of right required that would otherwise be established through the licensing process and the ability of the permit holder to proceed to commercial recovery. That priority of right continues through the commercial recovery permit. The length of the terms for an exploration license (10 years) and commercial recovery permit (20 years) would not change nor would the ability to extend these terms as described in the regulations. Once the Administrator would issue the license and permit under the consolidated process, the applicant could proceed with commercial recovery when it is ready;—this could be any time after the Administrator issues the license and permit. If an applicant determined that it would no longer need to conduct further exploration, it could decide to not extend its exploration license.
The fee for the consolidated application has been set at $350,000, which reflects inflation that has occurred in the time since the fee was set at $100,000. As discussed below in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section, NOAA is seeking public comment on alternatives to the consolidated license and permit process fee for consideration as well as public comment on the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
§ 971.802 Public disclosure of documents received by NOAA. NOAA proposes to revise § 971.802 to remove outdated procedures and cross-references for handling records and instead replace the section with a cross-reference to the current regulations which govern public disclosure of documents received by NOAA. The proposed changes would revise paragraph (a), remove paragraphs (b) through (e), and redesignate paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (b) and (c). The text of the redesignated paragraphs (b) and (c) remain unchanged from the current paragraphs (f) and (g).

III. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements

Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review
NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action does not affect any state's intergovernmental review process established under Executive Order 12372.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism Assessment
NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action is consistent with federalism principles, criteria, and requirements stated in Executive Order 13132. The proposed changes for the DSHMRA regulations would facilitate the submission of exploration license and commercial recovery permit applications as well as NOAA and interagency review of the applications. DSHMRA and these proposed regulatory changes do 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. Because DSHMRA and these regulations do not affect the principles of federalism, no federalism assessment need be prepared.

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed rule is economically significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866, Section 3(f)(1), because it is expected to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This regulatory action and the proposed changes, if they were to become a final rule, is not a “significant energy action” for purposes of Executive Order 13211. Therefore, NOAA has not prepared a statement of energy effects. The DSHMRA regulations and the proposed revisions would not result in a “significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.”

Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to prepare an analysis of a rule's impact on small businesses whenever the agency is required to publish a rulemaking, unless the agency certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605, that the action will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The RFA requires agencies to consider, but not necessarily minimize, the effects of rules on small businesses. The goal of the RFA is to inform the agency and public of expected economic effects of the action and to ensure the agency considers alternatives that minimize the expected economic effects on small businesses while meeting applicable goals and objectives.
NOAA developed the following Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) discussing the impacts of this proposed rule on small businesses.

Summary of Findings
NOAA has determined that this rule would not result in a significant cost impact on a substantial number of small businesses under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The proposed rule would result in a cost savings for the affected businesses.
Based on the information from this analysis we found that:
• There are an estimated seven U.S. businesses that would be affected by this proposed rule.
• For these seven businesses, we estimate that 57% (or four businesses) are considered small based on the Small Business Administration size standards.
• Although we estimate that seven businesses would be affected by this proposed rule, we recognize that the number of applicants could be even smaller since this is a new industry and there are specific technological, engineering, capital and support services required to undertake seabed mining.

Preliminary Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The RFA establishes rulemaking that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.

Description of the Reasons for Agency Action
Currently, the DSHMRA regulations require a sequential process. Applicants must first obtain an exploration license before a commercial recovery permit application can be applied for. While this sequential approach was initially appropriate due to the nascent stage of deep seabed mining technology and the data needed for a commercial recovery application, a consolidated review was always envisioned for a more mature industry.

Statement of Legal Basis and Objectives for the Rule
The statutory authority for NOAA to prescribe, change, revise, or amend the affected regulations under 15 CFR parts 970 and 971 is provided under DSHMRA (30 U.S.C. 1401-1473). DSHMRA, which was signed into law in 1980, requires the NOAA Administrator to promulgate regulations as necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. 30 U.S.C. 1468. NOAA published its DSHMRA exploration license regulations (15 CFR part 970) in 1981, and its commercial recovery permit regulations (15 CFR part 971) in 1989.
The objective of this rule is to provide the option for a consolidated application streamlining the process for qualified applicants, in accordance to President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14285, “Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources,” establishing policies to advance U.S. leadership in seabed mineral exploration and responsible commercial recovery.

Description of Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
This proposed rule would reduce the current requirements for reporting, recordkeeping, and other paperwork requirements for affected businesses by transitioning to electronic delivery and offering an optional consolidated process to streamline exploration licensing and commercial recovery permit acquisitions. These changes and their impacts are described in more depth in Chapters 4 and 5 of the RIA.

Overlapping, Duplicative, or Conflicting Federal Rules
The requirements of this proposed rule would not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal requirement.

Compliance Cost Savings
There are cost efficiencies in the transition from print to digital for submission of the application and also efficiencies in the consolidation of the permitting process rather than completing both the exploratory license and commercial recovery permit processes. Monetized savings are found in the preparation of one report rather than two and the need to only attend one adjudicatory hearing rather than two. The applying business would also see a savings of 100 days through only one review process rather than two.
The analysis assumes two applicants for exploratory permits, one applicant for a commercial recovery permit, and one applicant for a consolidated permit. Over ten years from 2026 to 2035, the total net benefits (USD) of the proposed rule is $137,000 undiscounted, $120,000 discounted at three percent and $103,000 discounted at seven percent. For an individual small business considering the consolidated application over the separate and sequential exploratory and recovery permit processes, they would see a cost savings from transitioning from paper to digital application of $5,733 and, further, from time savings of 100 days to start the recovery process. For a business electing the sequential process of exploratory and recovery permits, the benefits of transitioning from paper to digital application submissions would be $5,196. Other benefits from the standardization of the exploratory and commercial recovery applications were not quantified.

Description of the Potential Number of Small Businesses
We used the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes of the current businesses that have applied or expressed interest to start our research for the identification of the potential small businesses affected by this proposed rule. We identified seven businesses likely to be affected by this proposed rule. We researched and compiled the employee size and revenue data for all seven businesses. We used their available name and address information to research public and proprietary databases for business type (subsidiary or parent business), primary line of business, employee size and revenue. Our preferred source, deemed to be most authoritative, came directly from prospective DSHMRA applicants. In cases where the prospective DSHMRA applicant did not provide this information, our secondary preferred source came from Dun & Bradstreet—which provides a comprehensive database of business records for over 600 million organizations internationally. We matched this information to the SBA's “Table of Small Business Size Standards” to determine if a business is small in NAICS 212290—`All Other Metal Ore Mining,' which best describes deep sea mining. This industry has an SBA size standard of 1,250 employees. Based on the information available we were able to classify four out of seven businesses potentially impacted by this proposed rule as small businesses. In addition to these directly impacted small businesses, businesses in several other industries may be indirectly impacted and are included in the Table below.
Table—NAICS Categories for Small Businesses
NAICS code | Description | Number of small businesses by industry * | Small business share of industry * (%) | Estimated revenue per small business * | SBA standard | Number of small businesses affected by the rule ***
212290 | All Other Metal Ore Mining | 30 | 88 | $40.5 M | 1,250 Employees | 4
213114 | Support Activities for Metal Mining | 158 | 90 | 2.3 M | 41.00 Mil |
213115 | Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels) Mining | 175 | 90 | 2.7 M | 20.50 Mil |
523110 | Investment Banking and Securities Intermediation | 1,861 | 91 | 2.6 M | 47.00 Mil |
541620 | Environmental Consulting Services | 8,119 | 97 | 1.2 M | 19.00 Mil |
541690 | Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services | 25,810 | 98 | 0.8 M | 19.00 Mil |
* Source: U.S. Census Bureau Statistics of U.S. Businesses.
** Source: SBA Office of Size Standards.
*** Source: NOAA records. The number of small businesses is calculated based on business information received from potential DSHMRA applicants and SBA Size Standards by 6-digit NAICS code. In some cases the SBA Size Standard is based on a business's total annual receipts (gross income plus cost of goods sold). Due to a lack of data on businesses” annual receipts it was not possible to determine whether they met the standard for a small business.

Cost Impact Analysis
This proposed rule will result in benefits ( i.e., compliance cost savings) to the small businesses as presented in the Compliance Cost Savings section above. To assess the impact to small businesses, we calculated the benefits as a percentage of businesses' revenues. Annual revenue figures could only be found for two of the four applicants that we determined to be small businesses ^3 and showed an interest in applying for a deep seabed mining license and/or commercial recovery permit. This was primarily due to the majority of interested businesses being newly incorporated in 2025. Using business reports and financial records, we found that the small business benefits of the proposed rule would have greater than a 1 percent of positive impact on annual revenues.
^3 Due to limited data on business revenue and/or employee totals, we could not determine whether two potential DSM applicants were small businesses. Hence, these businesses were not included in this analysis.

Alternatives Considered
The proposed requirements will bring benefits ( i.e., compliance cost savings) to small businesses. NOAA's ability under the statute to develop alternatives to the license and permit processes are limited, as DSHMRA states that an application for an exploration license establishes priority of right to an area. Therefore, NOAA could not, through regulation, remove the requirement for an exploration license. NOAA did consider amounts for the administrative fee for the consolidated license and permit process. Under existing regulations, the fee for an exploration license application is $100,000, and the fee for a commercial recovery permit application would be another $100,000. NOAA is proposing a $350,000 fee for the consolidated license and permit application, which reflects inflation that has occurred in the time since the fee was set at $100,000. Additionally, as required in the statute (30 U.S.C. 1414) and described in the regulations (15 CFR 970.208 and 971.208), an applicant must pay to the Administrator a reasonable administrative fee, and the amount of the administrative fee shall reflect the reasonable administrative costs incurred in reviewing and processing the application. Therefore, NOAA adjusts the fee up or down depending on the administrative costs incurred. NOAA welcomes public comment on alternatives to the consolidated license and permit process fee for consideration.

Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This proposed rule seeks to extend and revise the existing requirements for the collection of information 0648-0145, currently titled “Deep Seabed Mining Regulations for Exploration Licenses” and now proposed to be renamed “Deep Seabed Mining Regulations.” In accordance with section 3507(d) of the PRA, the information collection requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB.
This proposed rule would permit concurrent submission of applications for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits. Anyone seeking an exploration license or commercial recovery permit must submit certain information that allows NOAA to ensure the applicant meets the standards of the Act. Licensees and permittees are required to conduct monitoring and make reports, including annual reports regarding the licensee's or permittee's conformance to the schedule of activities and expenditures contained in the license or permit, and they may request revisions, transfers, or extensions of licenses or permits. Information required for the issuance, revision, transfer, and extension of licenses and permits ensures that the Administrator is able to make determinations on the findings set forth in 30 U.S.C. 1413(c) and 30 U.S.C. 1415(a) and the factors set forth in the DSHMRA regulations. These findings and factors include that applicants have identified areas of interest for deep seabed hard mineral exploration and production; developed plans for those activities; have the financial resources available to conduct proposed activity; and have considered the effects of the activity on the natural and human environment. This information is used to determine whether licenses and permits should be issued, revised, transferred, or extended. The licenses and permits are subject to annual reporting requirements and may be subject to extension requests (every five years for exploration licenses, or every twenty years for commercial recovery permits).
NOAA estimates that the public reporting burden for applicants taking advantage of the consolidated exploration license and commercial recovery permit process would be 1,125 hours per applicant; with an estimated one applicant per year using the consolidated process, the total annual burden hours for this process would be 1,125 hours. This estimate takes into account the one-time initial cost (in hours) per entity to prepare and submit to NOAA the consolidated license and permit application. NOAA estimates that the public reporting burden for applicants submitting an exploration license application alone would be 750 hours per applicant, with two applicants anticipated per year resulting in total annual burden hours of 1,500. A commercial recovery permit application alone would be 750 hours, with one anticipated commercial recovery permit applicant per year for a total of 750 anticipated annual burden hours. This estimate takes into account the one-time initial cost (in hours) per entity to prepare and submit to NOAA either a license application or a permit application.
NOAA anticipates a total of two annual exploration license applications, one annual commercial recovery permit application, and one annual consolidated application for both an exploration license and a commercial recovery permit. NOAA has sought information from potential respondents as to the time estimates of preparing applications. One potential respondent estimated a total of 3,600 hours to prepare three applications, resulting in an estimated 1,200 hours per application. Another respondent estimated a total of 600 hours to prepare two applications, resulting in an estimated 300 hours per application. Averaging the estimated time burden between these two potential respondents results in an estimated 750 hours per application. NOAA has used this hour estimate for the time burden of preparing a single license or permit application. For a consolidated exploration license and commercial recovery permit application, this is a new proposed process, but NOAA provides an educated guess that the estimated time burden would be 1.5 times that of a single application, due to efficiencies gained in reducing duplication of effort. As such, NOAA estimates that preparation of a consolidated application would take 1,125 hours. NOAA will update this information in future renewals of this collection based on the actual number of license applications, permit applications, and consolidated applications received during the collection approval cycle, and on further information.
NOAA estimates that there may be one objection to license or permit terms, conditions, or restrictions received per year. NOAA anticipates that the respondent would spend 250 hours per objection for an estimated total annual burden of 250 hours.
Every subsequent year, NOAA anticipates that the total annual cost burden (in hours) for applicable entities to implement the rule by filing annual reports would be 20 hours per report, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The estimated total burden to produce an annual report will vary according to the amount of activities by the license and/or permit holder and is expected to average 20 hours based on previous reports submitted to NOAA. With 5 anticipated annual reports per year, that would result in a total of 100 annual burden hours for annual reports.
The estimated total burden to prepare a license or permit extension request which includes an exploration plan or commercial recovery plan is 250 hours. A license is issued for a period of ten years. Extension requests may be submitted every five years for exploration licenses, or may be submitted after ten or twenty years (depending on circumstances) for commercial recovery permits. NOAA estimates that the annualized burden hours of extension requests is 50 annualized hours for exploration license extension requests and 25 annualized hours for commercial recovery permit extension requests.
The estimated total burden to prepare a license or permit revision is 40 hours. Based on historical data, NOAA expects to receive 2 revision requests in a given year for a total of 80 annual burden hours.
The estimated total burden to prepare a license or permit transfer request is 750 hours. Based on historical data, NOAA expects to receive 1 transfer request every 10 years. NOAA estimates that the annualized burden of a transfer request is 75 hours.
NOAA has made an educated estimate, based on its experience with processing other types of permit or license hearings or appeals, that the applicant may spend 200 hours of time preparing submittals for an adjudicatory hearing if such hearing is requested or necessary. NOAA anticipates that there may be 1 adjudicatory hearing per year for a total of 200 annual burden hours.
In sum, the estimated annual public reporting burden hours for this collection of information is 4,155 hours. The estimated total annual wage burden costs would be $477,825 based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook mean annual wage estimate for Chief Executives (11-1011) at $239,200 ( https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm#tab-5 ). The hourly wage rate was calculated by dividing the mean annual salary by 2,080 hours for an hourly wage rate of $115.
NOAA anticipates that the annual cost burden for applicable entities taking advantage of the consolidated exploration license and commercial recovery permit process is $350,000 for the fee for the consolidated application which has been proposed to be set at $350,000, which reflects inflation since the fee was initially set at $100,000. With one anticipated consolidated application per year, this would be a total estimated annual cost to respondents of $350,000 for the consolidated permit process.
NOAA anticipates that the annual cost burden for applicants submitting an exploration license application alone or a commercial recovery permit application alone would be $100,000 for the application fee. With an anticipated two exploration license applications and one commercial recovery permit application per year, this would be a total estimated annual cost to respondents of $300,000 for the exploration license and commercial recovery permit applications. NOAA anticipates that there may be one adjudicatory hearing per year. It is anticipated that a respondent will hire an attorney for any adjudicatory hearings. The cost anticipates the attorney will spend approximately 200 hours of work submitting evidence, providing oral argument, and submitting written arguments if desired. The mean hourly wage rate for a lawyer (BLS occupational code 23-1011, https://data.bls.gov/oesprofile/ ) is $87.86. A multiplier of 1.5 was used to calculate the loaded salary/anticipated billing rate, for an hourly rate of $131.79. 200 hours × $131.79/hr = $26,358.
In sum, the total estimated annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers is $676,358. This total estimated annual cost burden does not include the cost of wage burden hours described above; the total estimated wage burden cost is $477,825 as described above.
These hour and cost estimates are subject to variations among responsible entities depending on the size of the area being explored or mined and the extent of operations. As NOAA gains experience with the regulatory program, burden estimates will be revised.
The estimated annual federal salary cost to the U.S. Government is $2,222,226. These estimates are based on base salaries calculated using the General Schedule (GS) pay tables ( https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2025/RUS.pdf ) for the Rest of U.S. location. The Rest of U.S. location was used since NOAA employees are geographically dispersed. A multiplier of 1.5 was used to calculate the loaded salary. The estimated number of federal employees needed to process the information collection for the applications and other reporting requirements are 20 employees, with ten employees at a salary level of GS-15, five employees at a salary level of GS-14, and five employees at a salary level of GS-13.
NOAA anticipates travel may be required for public hearings, with an estimated annual cost of $48,000 based on an estimated four trips per year for four staff, costing $3,000 each.
NOAA anticipates there may be one adjudicatory hearing per year. The base salary cost for the Administrative Law Judge for the hearing was calculated using the GS pay tables ( https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2025/ALJ.pdf ) and using a multiplier of 1.5 to obtain the loaded salary for an estimated cost of $6,023.
In sum, the total estimated annual cost to the U.S. Government is $2,276,249.
Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, use, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information within 60 days of publication of this notice at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA is analyzing this proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), the NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, and the NOAA Companion Manual, “Policy and Procedures for Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Related Authorities” (effective January 13, 2017). This proposed rule would establish a consolidated permit application process without changing the substantive standards to which applications will be held. NOAA believes that because this rulemaking includes only technical changes to the regulatory text, it falls within a category of actions that NOAA has found to have no significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment and therefore may be excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Specifically, the proposed rule is consistent with the criteria of categorical exclusion reference number G7 in Appendix E of the NOAA Companion Manual, Preparation of policy directives, rules, regulations, and guidelines of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature, or for which the environmental effects are too broad, speculative or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will be subject later to the NEPA process, either collectively or on a case-by-case basis. NOAA has not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Furthermore, as required by DSHMRA (30 U.S.C. 1419(d)), NOAA will prepare an environmental impact statement before issuing any license or permit. Therefore, NOAA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule would not result in significant effects to the human environment and qualifies to be categorically excluded from the need to prepare a further NEPA analysis. NOAA will review all comments submitted in response to this notice of proposed rulemaking prior to concluding our NEPA process and finalizing this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Parts 970 and 971
Administrative practice and procedure, Marine resources, Mineral resources.
Laura Grimm,

Chief of Staff, Performing the Duties of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NOAA proposes to revise 15 CFR parts 970 and 971 as follows:

PARTS 970 AND 971—DEEP SEABED MINING REGULATIONS FOR EXPLORATION LICENSES AND COMMERCIAL RECOVERY PERMITS
1. The authority citation for parts 970 and 971 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
30 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.
2. Amend § 970.200 by revising paragraph (b) as follows:
§ 970.200
General.
* * * * *
(b) Place, form and copies. Applications for the issuance or transfer of exploration licenses must be submitted in electronic format, verified and signed by an authorized officer or other authorized representative of the applicant, to an email address or website as specified by NOAA. The application format shall be organized according to the specific regulatory topics and sections.
* * * * *
3. Amend § 970.209 by revising § 970.209 to read as follows:
§ 970.209
Substantial compliance with application requirements.
(a) Priority of right for the issuance of licenses to new entrants will be established on the basis of the chronological order in which exploration license applications filed under Part 970, Subpart A and consolidated license and permit applications filed under § 971.214 that are in substantial compliance are received by the Administrator.
(b) In order for an application to be in substantial compliance, it must include information specifically identifiable with and materially responsive to the requirements contained in, as applicable, §§ 970.201 through 970.208 or 971.214. A determination on substantial compliance relates only to whether the application contains the required information and does not constitute a determination on certification of the application, or on issuance or transfer of a license.
(c) The Administrator will notify the applicant in writing whether the application is in substantial compliance within 30 days of receipt of an application. The notice will identify, if applicable, in what respects the application is not in either full or substantial compliance. If the application is in substantial but not full compliance, the notice will specify the information which the applicant must submit in order to bring it into full compliance, and why the additional information is necessary.
* * * * *
4. Amend § 970.210 by revising § 970.210 to read as follows:
§ 970.210
Reasonable time for full compliance.
Priority of right will not be lost in case of any application filed which is in substantial but not full compliance, as specified in § 970.209, if the Administrator determines that the applicant, within 60 days after issuance to the applicant by the Administrator of written notice that the application is in substantial but not full compliance, has brought the application into full compliance with the requirements, as applicable, of §§ 970.201 through 970.208 or 971.214.
5. Amend § 971.200 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 971.200
General.
* * * * *
(b) Place, form and copies. An application for the issuance or transfer of a commercial recovery permit must be submitted in electronic format, verified and signed by an authorized officer or other authorized representative of the applicant, to an email address or website as specified by NOAA. The application format shall be organized according to the specific regulatory topics and sections.
* * * * *
6. Amend § 971.214 by revising § 971.214 to read as follows:
§ 971.214
Consolidated license and permit procedures.
(a) General. Consolidated license and permit shall follow the requirements in this section and not the requirements set forth in §§ 970.200 through 970.208, 970.400 through 970.408, 971.200 through 971.210, and 971.300 through 971.303. All other requirements set forth in 15 CFR parts 970 and 971 shall apply to a consolidated license and permit application and all the sections in parts 970 and 971, except for § 971.214, shall continue to apply to individual license or permit applications.
(b) Who may apply; how. Any United States citizen who can demonstrate that he, she, or it possesses the scientific, technical, and financial resources to pursue commercial recovery activities in an expeditious and diligent manner may apply to the Administrator for issuance or transfer of an exploration license and a commercial recovery permit using the “consolidated license and permit procedures” as set out in this section. Under these consolidated procedures, a qualified applicant may submit a single consolidated application that seeks both an exploration license and a commercial recovery permit. The Administrator will issue a separate license and permit to the applicant if the application complies with the Act and regulations. The Administrator shall consolidate public hearings and other proceedings for the concurrent processing of the issue or transfer of the license or permit to the extent practicable. The Administrator may also prepare a single environmental impact statement that evaluates the impacts of both exploration activities and commercial recovery activities. The Administrator shall issue separate proposals to issue or transfer the license or permit; terms, conditions, and restrictions for the license or permit; and licenses and permits.
(c) Application and form of applications. The application shall contain the items specified in this section. Each portion of the application shall identify the requirements of this section to which it responds. An applicant shall request to have any information in its application be kept confidential at the time of submitting the information. An applicant shall include information previously submitted that the applicant will rely on in the consolidated license and permit application. Applications shall be submitted electronically as specified by the Administrator.
(d) Contents. The application shall contain information sufficient to enable the Administrator to make the findings set forth in 30 U.S.C. 1415(a) and 15 CFR 970.500(c), 971.214(f), and 971.400(c), including the following items.
(1) Past exploration description and affirmation. A description of exploration activities undertaken prior to application submission by the applicant, the proposed transferor, or other entities that demonstrate that the applicant will be able to proceed to commercial recovery with limited or no additional exploration.
(i) This shall contain information on when the work was performed, what entity performed the work, the applicant's relationship to the entity performing the work, and the applicant's access to the information collected as a result, including the following items:
(A) Survey cruises to determine the location and abundance of nodules as well as the sea floor configuration, ocean currents and other physical characteristics of potential commercial recovery sites;
(B) Assaying nodules to determine their metal contents;
(C) Designing and testing system components onshore and at sea;
(D) Designing and testing mining systems that simulate commercial recovery;
(E) Designing and testing processing systems to prove concepts and designing and testing systems that simulate commercial processing; and
(F) Evaluating the continued feasibility of commercial scale operations based on technical, economic, legal, and environmental considerations.
(ii) An explanation for why the applicant qualifies to use the consolidated license and permit procedures in this section, including demonstrating that the need for further exploration activities in the proposed license and permit area is minimal or not needed and the applicant possesses the scientific, technical, and financial resources to pursue commercial recovery activities in an expeditious and diligent manner.
(iii) Documentation of any agreements, contracts, or partnerships of other businesses or entities that the applicant will rely on for the various parts of any exploration or commercial recovery operations or financing.
(2) Statement of financial resources. Information sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is capable of committing or raising sufficient resources to cover the estimated costs of the exploration program contained in the exploration plan and the commercial recovery program contained in the commercial recovery plan, including general estimated costs of the exploration and commercial recovery plans. Other information shall include, to the extent it is available, the most recent audited financial statement (for publicly-held companies, the most recent annual report and Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission) for the applicant and those entities upon which the applicant will rely to finance the exploration activities and the credit and bond rating of the applicant and such financing entities.
(3) Statement of technological experience and capabilities. Information sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant has the technological capability to carry out the exploration program contained in the exploration plan and the commercial recovery program contained in the commercial recovery plan. In particular, the information submitted pursuant to this section shall describe the equipment, knowledge, and skills the applicant possesses or to which it can demonstrate access, including:
(i) A description of the exploration equipment to be used by the applicant in carrying out the exploration program;
(ii) A description of the environmental monitoring equipment to be used by the applicant in monitoring the environmental effects of the exploration program;
(iii) A description of the technology, equipment, and methods to be used by the applicant in carrying out each step in the mining process, including nodule collection, retrieval, transfer to ship, environmental monitoring, transport to processing facilities, nodule processing, waste disposal and compliance with applicable water quality standards. The description shall include:
(A) An analysis of the performance of experimental systems, sub-systems, or analogous machinery;
(B) The rationale for extrapolating from test results to commercial mining;
(C) Anticipated system reliability within the context of anticipated production time lost through equipment failure; and
(D) A functional description of the types of technical qualifications the applicant will require for persons operating its equipment.
(4) Exploration plan. A description of the applicant's proposed exploration activities including: sufficient information for the Administrator to make the necessary determinations pertaining to the certification and issuance of a license and to the development and enforcement of the terms, conditions and restrictions (TCRs) for a license; and the following specific items:
(i) A description of the activities proposed to be carried out during the period of the license;
(ii) A description of the area that will be explored, including its delineation according to § 970.601;
(iii) The intended exploration schedule addressing which of the following exploration activities the applicant intends to conduct after the issuance of the license and when each of these proposed activities will occur:
(A) Conducting survey cruises to determine the location and abundance of nodules as well as the sea floor configuration, ocean currents and other physical characteristics of potential commercial recovery sites;
(B) Assaying nodules to determine their metal contents;
(C) Designing and testing system components onshore and at sea;
(D) Designing and testing mining systems which simulate commercial recovery;
(E) Designing and testing processing systems to prove concepts and designing and testing systems which simulate commercial processing; and
(F) Evaluating the continued feasibility of commercial scale operations based on technical, economic, legal, political and environmental considerations;
(iv) For exploration activities that the applicant intends to conduct under an exploration license:
(A) A description of the methods to determine the location, abundance, and quality ( i.e., assay) of nodules and to measure physical conditions in the area that will affect nodule recovery system design and operations ( e.g., seafloor topography, seafloor geotechnic properties, and currents);
(B) A general description of the recovery and processing technology related to the proposed license and of any planned testing and evaluation of such technology addressing such factors as nodule collection technique, seafloor sediment rejection subsystem, mineship nodule separation scheme, pumping method, anticipated equipment test areas, and details on the testing plan; and
(C) Measures to protect the environment and to monitor the effectiveness of environmental safeguards and monitoring systems. These measures must take into account the provisions in §§ 970.506, 970.518, 970.522 and subpart G of this part.
(5) Commercial Recovery Plan. Description of the applicant's projected commercial recovery activities for the twenty-year period to be covered by the proposed permit, including: sufficient information for the Administrator to make the necessary determinations pertaining to the certification and issuance of a permit and to the development and enforcement of the TCRs for a permit; and the following specific items:
(i) A description of the activities proposed to be carried out during the period of the permit;
(ii) The intended schedule of commercial recovery (see “Diligent commercial recovery,” § 971.503);
(iii) Environmental safeguards and monitoring systems, which must take into account requirements under subpart F of this part, including best available technologies (BAT) (§ 971.604) and monitoring (§ 971.603);
(iv) Details of the area or areas proposed for commercial recovery, which meet requirements for diligence (§ 971.503) and conservation of resources pursuant to subpart E (especially § 971.502);
(v) A resource assessment of the area or areas proposed for commercial recovery which meets the requirements for resource assessment and logical mining unit (§ 971.501);
(vi) A description of the methods and technology to be used for commercial recovery and processing (see § 971.202(b)(1)); and
(vii) The methods to be used for disposal of wastes from recovery and processing, including the areas for disposal and identification of any toxic substances in wastes.
(6) Environmental and use conflict analysis. Sufficient marine environmental information for the Administrator to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed activities in the consolidated license and permit application and to determine the appropriate permit TCRs, including:
(i) Physical, chemical and biological information describing the environmental characteristics of the relevant area, including relevant environmental information obtained during past exploration activities;
(ii) A monitoring plan for any proposed but not yet completed exploration activities, including test mining, and any at-sea commercial recovery activities that meets the objectives and requirements of § 971.603;
(iii) Information known to the applicant on other uses of the proposed mining area to support the Administrator's determination regarding potential use conflicts between commercial mining activities and those activities of other nations or of other U.S. citizens and to assist the Administrator in making determinations related to potential use conflicts pursuant to §§ 970.503, 970.505, 970.520, 971.403, 971.405, and 971.421; and
(iv) Onshore information including the location and operation of nodule processing facilities in accordance with § 971.606.
The Administrator may require the submission of additional data in the event the Administrator determines that the basis for a suitable EIS or a determination of appropriate TCRs is not available.
(7) Vessel safety and documentation. In order to provide a basis for the necessary determinations with respect to the safety of life and property at sea, the application shall contain the following information for vessels used for the purposes covered by the application, except for vessels under 300 gross tons which are engaged in oceanographic research:
(i) U.S. flag vessel. A demonstration or affirmation that any U.S. flag vessel used in exploration activities will possess a current valid Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection (COI). All mining ships and at least one of the transport ships used by each permittee must be documented under the laws of the United States. To the extent that the applicant knows which U.S. flag vessels it will use, it shall include with its application copies of the vessels' current valid Coast Guard COIs.
(ii) Foreign flag vessels. To the extent that the applicant knows which foreign flag vessel(s) it will be using for other purposes, the application shall include evidence that:
(A) Any foreign flag vessel whose flag state is party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS 74) possesses current valid SOLAS 74 certificates;
(B) Any foreign flag vessel whose flag state is not party to SOLAS 74 but is party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960 (SOLAS 60) possesses current valid SOLAS 60 certificates; and
(C) Any foreign flag vessel whose flag state is not a party to either SOLAS 74 or SOLAS 60 meets all applicable structural and safety requirements contained in the published rules of a member of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS).
(iii) Supplemental certificates. If the applicant does not know at the time of submitting an application which vessels it will be using, it shall submit the applicable certification to the Administrator for each vessel before the cruise on which it will be used.
(8) Statement of Ownership. Sufficient information to demonstrate that the applicant is a U.S. citizen, including:
(i) Name, address, and telephone number of the U.S. citizen responsible for exploration operations to whom notices and orders are to be delivered; and
(ii) A description of the citizen or citizens engaging in such exploration, including
(A) Whether the citizen is a natural person, partnership, corporation, joint venture, or other form of association;
(B) The state of incorporation or state in which the partnership or other business entity is registered;
(C) The name of registered agent or equivalent representative and places of business;
(D) Certification of essential and nonproprietary provisions in articles of incorporation, charter or articles of association; and
(E) The name of each member of the association, partnership, or joint venture, including information about the participation of each partner and joint venturer and/or ownership of stock.
(9) Antitrust information. In order to facilitate antitrust review pursuant to section 103(d) of the Act, the application shall contain:
(i) A copy of each agreement between any parties to any joint venture which is applying for a license, provided that said agreement relates to deep seabed hard mineral resource exploration or mining;
(ii) The identity of any affiliate of any person applying for a license; and
(iii) For each applicant, its affiliate, or parent or subsidiary of an affiliate which is engaged in production in, or the purchase or sale in or to, the United States of copper, nickel, cobalt or manganese minerals or any metals refined from these minerals:
(A) The annual tons and dollar value of any of these minerals and metals so purchased, sold or produced for the two preceding years;
(B) Copies of the annual report, balance sheet and income statement for the two preceding years; and
(C) Copies of each document submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
(10) Fee. A fee payment of $350,000 payable to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, shall accompany each application. If the administrative costs of reviewing and processing the application are significantly less than or in excess of $350,000, the Administrator will refund the difference or require the applicant to pay the additional amount before issuance or transfer of the license or permit. In the case of an application for transfer of a license or permit to, or for a significant change to a license or permit held by, an entity that has previously been found qualified for a permit, the Administrator may reduce the fee in advance by an appropriate amount which reflects costs avoided by reliance on previous findings made in relation to the proposed transferee. Payment of the application fee does not determine priority of right.
(11) Processing outside the United States. Except as provided in this section and § 971.408, the processing of hard minerals recovered pursuant to a permit shall be conducted within the United States, provided that the President or his designee does not determine that this restriction contravenes the overriding national interests of the United States. The application shall contain the information outlined in § 971.408 if applicable.
(e) Certification. To the maximum extent practicable, the Administrator will certify a consolidated application within 100 days of the submission of an application which is in full compliance. If final certification or denial of certification has not occurred within 100 days after submission of the application, the Administrator shall inform the applicant in writing of the then pending unresolved issues, the agency's efforts to resolve them, and an estimate of the time required to do so. Certification will occur after consultation with other departments and agencies pursuant to § 970.211 and determining in writing that:
(1) The applicant is qualified to use this consolidated license and permit application procedure as the applicant has demonstrated that the need for further exploration activities in the proposed license and permit area is minimal or not needed and the applicant possesses the scientific, technical, and financial resources to pursue commercial recovery activities in an expeditious and diligent manner.
(2) The issuance or transfer of the license and the permit would not violate any of the restrictions of 15 CFR 970.103(b).
(3) The size and location of the exploration and commercial recovery area selected by the applicant is a logical mining unit under § 971.501.
(4) The applicant:
(i) Has demonstrated that, upon issuance or transfer of the license and the permit, the applicant will be financially responsible to meet all obligations which may be required to engage in its proposed exploration and commercial recovery activities;
(ii) Has demonstrated that, upon license and permit issuance or transfer, will possess or have access to the technological capability to engage in the proposed exploration and commercial recovery;
(iii) Has satisfactorily fulfilled all past obligations under any license or permit previously issued or transferred to the applicant under the Act;
(iv) Has an exploration plan which meets the requirements of § 971.214(d)(4);
(v) Has a commercial recovery plan which meets the requirements of § 971.214(d)(5); and
(vi) Has paid the application fee specified in § 971.214(c)(10).
(5) Issuing the exploration license and the commercial recovery permit described in the application would not violate any of the restrictions in § 970.103(b).
(f) Denial of Certification. The Administrator may deny certification of an application if it does not meet the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section or the requirements for issuance or transfer under §§ 970.503 through 970.507 or §§ 971.403 through 971.408. The Administrator shall send to the applicant and publish in the Federal Register written notice of a proposed denial of certification.
(1) Such notice shall include:
(i) The basis for the denial;
(ii) If the basis for the proposed denial is because the applicant is not qualified to use consolidated procedures under this subsection:
(A) The reasons for that determination;
(B) The time within which the applicant may submit an amended application for an exploration license under Part 970 without disturbing the applicant's priority of right, which shall be 60 days except as specified by the Administrator for good cause; and
(C) The number of days from receipt of the amended application in which the Administrator will certify or deny certification of the amended application in accordance with 15 CFR 970.400. The Administrator shall endeavor to complete certification of an amended application within 50 days of receipt.
(iii) If the basis for the proposed denial is a deficiency that the applicant can correct:
(A) How to correct the deficiency; and
(B) The time within which the corrected application must be submitted, which will not exceed 180 days except as specified by the Administrator for good cause.
(2) The Administrator shall deny certification:
(i) On the 30th day after the date the notice is sent to the applicant, under paragraph (f) of this section unless before that date the applicant files with the Administrator a written request for an administrative review of the proposed denial; or
(ii) On the last day of the period established under paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section during which the applicant may submit an amended application for an exploration license under part 970, if the applicant fails to submit such an amended application before such day and an administrative review requested pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section is not pending;
(iii) On the last day of the period established under paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B)) of this section during which the applicant may correct a deficiency, if such deficiency has not been corrected before such day and an administrative review requested pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section is not pending.
(3) If a timely request for administrative review of the proposed denial is made by the applicant under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the Administrator will promptly begin a formal hearing in accordance with subpart I of 15 CFR part 971. If the proposed denial is the result of a correctable deficiency, the administrative review will proceed concurrently with any attempts to correct the deficiency, unless the parties agree otherwise or the administrative law judge orders differently.
(4) The Administrator will send the applicant written notice of any denial of certification including the reasons therefore.
(5) Any final determination granting or denying certification is subject to judicial review as provided in Chapter 7 of Title 5, United States Code.
(g) Effect of this section on pending applications. Within 60 days of this rule becoming final, an applicant who has an application for a license pending before the Administrator may notify the Administrator in writing of its intention to proceed under these consolidated procedures. Such applicants shall submit an amended application that complies with this subpart, and the amended application shall be processed in accordance with this subpart.
7. Amend § 971.802 by revising paragraph (a), removing paragraphs (b) through (e), and redesignating paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
§ 971.802
Public disclosure of documents received by NOAA.
(a) Procedures for requesting confidential treatment of information submitted to, reported to, or collected by the Administrator pursuant to this part and 15 CFR part 970 will be in accordance with 15 CFR part 4. Procedures for requesting records and handling requests for records containing information submitted to, reported to, or collected by the Administrator pursuant to this part and 15 CFR part 970 will also be in accordance with 15 CFR part 4.
(b) * * *
(c) * * *
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Part 525
RIN 1235-AA14
Employment of Workers With Disabilities Under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; Withdrawal

AGENCY:
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.

ACTION:
Withdrawal of proposed rule.

SUMMARY:
The Department of Labor (Department) is withdrawing its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 4, 2024 (89 FR 96466), which proposed to amend 29 CFR part 525 to phase out the issuance of subminimum wage certificates under section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). With this action, the Department is formally discontinuing the rulemaking process and removing the proposal from further consideration.

DATES:
The proposed rule published on December 4, 2024 (89 FR 96466), is withdrawn as of July 7, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
The docket for this withdrawn proposed rule is available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/WHD-2024-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Navarrete, Director, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division (WHD), U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Alternative formats are available upon request by calling 1-866-487-9243. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
The FLSA generally requires that employees be paid at least the Federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 per hour, for every hour worked and at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 in a single workweek. ^1
^1 29 U.S.C. 206(a), 207(a).
Since its enactment in 1938, section 14 of the FLSA has required the Department to provide for the issuance of certificates permitting employers to pay workers at wage rates below the federal minimum wage when the worker's disability impairs his or her earning or productive capacity. Specifically, section 14(c) states that the Department, “to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment, shall by regulation or order provide for the employment, under special certificates, of [qualifying] individuals . . . at wages which are lower than the minimum wage.” ^2
^2 29 U.S.C. 214(c)(1) (emphasis added).
The Department's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is responsible for administering the section 14(c) certificate program and enforcing its requirements.

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On December 4, 2024, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (89 FR 96466), in which it reviewed a number of legal and policy developments that have expanded employment opportunities and protections for individuals with disabilities since Congress first enacted the subminimum wage provision in 1938 and since the Department last substantively revised its section 14(c) regulations in 1989.
Based on this review, the Department preliminarily concluded that subminimum wages are no longer necessary to prevent the curtailment of employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. This preliminary conclusion largely rested on its evaluation of legal and policy developments, including the enactment of state laws phasing out comparable subminimum wage provisions and the declining use of section 14(c) certificates.
Based on this preliminary conclusion, the proposed rule would have amended 29 CFR part 525 to cease issuance of new section 14(c) certificates to employers submitting an initial application on or after the effective date of a final rule, and to permit existing section 14(c) certificate holders—assuming all legal requirements were met—to continue to operate under section 14(c) certificate authority for up to 3 years after the effective date of a final rule.

III. Summary of Comments
The Department received over 17,000 comment submissions, including more than 11,000 unique comments, in response to the NPRM. Commenters represented a broad array of stakeholders, including individuals with disabilities and their family members, disability rights advocates, Members of Congress, service providers, section 14(c) certificate holders, their employees who work with individuals with disabilities, and others. The Department appreciates the wide range of comments from a variety of stakeholders and notes that the unique perspectives provided underscore the broad array of interest in this issue. Comments may be viewed on the regulations.gov website, docket ID WHD-2024-0001.
Some comments expressed general support for or opposition to the proposed rule. Others raised more specific legal and policy concerns. Several commenters addressed the Department's authority under section 14(c) of the FLSA. That provision states that “[t]he Secretary, to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment, shall by regulation or order provide for the employment, under special certificates, of individuals . . . whose earning or productive capacity is impaired by age, physical or mental deficiency, or injury” at subminimum wage rates. ^3 Some commenters agreed with the Department's preliminary conclusion that section 14(c) certificates are no longer necessary and that the FLSA provides authority for the Department to determine when that is the case. However, others—including the Chairman and several Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce—asserted that “DOL does not have the statutory authority to stop issuing 14(c) certificates.” ^4
^3 29 U.S.C. 214(c)(1).
^4 Letter from Hon. Tim Walberg, Hon. Virginia Foxx, Hon. Glenn Thompson, and Hon. Glenn Grothman, Chairman and members of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, to Acting Secretary Julie Su, U.S. Department of Labor, RIN 1235-AA14, Employment of Workers with Disabilities Under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Jan. 17, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/WHD-2024-0001-16506.
Commenters also expressed opposition to the Department's proposal to phase out the issuance of section 14(c) certificates on consequential grounds, focusing on: (1) that the proposed rule could lead to the closure or downsizing of community rehabilitation programs (CRPs), which hold the vast majority of section 14(c) certificates and provide many services to individuals with disabilities beyond employment, (2) that some individuals with disabilities are not able to work in competitive integrated employment (CIE) and would face unemployment or reduced employment opportunities without the option of working under a section 14(c) certificate, and (3) that workers with disabilities should be able to choose between subminimum wage employment and CIE.
Commenters supporting the Department's proposal focused on, among other things: (1) that all workers with disabilities have a right to be paid at least the Federal minimum wage, (2) that the payment of subminimum wages is an unfair, antiquated, and discriminatory pay practice, and (3) that section 14(c) certificates are no longer necessary for individuals with disabilities to successfully obtain employment at or above the full Federal minimum wage, as demonstrated by several states that have already moved away from the payment of subminimum wages.

IV. Rationale for Withdrawal
The Department has carefully considered the wide range of views, information, analysis, and proposed alternatives submitted in response to the NPRM. In light of the record and for the reasons set forth below, the Department has decided to withdraw the NPRM.
The Department takes seriously the concerns expressed by Members of Congress and others that it lacks statutory authority to unilaterally and permanently terminate the issuance of section 14(c) certificates. Section 14 of the FLSA includes both permissive and mandatory provisions. For example, section 14(d) provides that the Secretary of Labor “ may by regulation or order” exempt certain student workers from FLSA wage-and-hour requirements. By contrast, section 14(c) states that the Secretary “ shall by regulation or order provide for the employment, under special certificates, of individuals . . . at wages which are . . . lower than the minimum wage” when the individual's disability impairs their earning or productive capacity. Where, as here, “a statute distinguishes between `may' and `shall,' it is generally clear that `shall' imposes a mandatory duty.” Kingdomware Tech., Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 162, 172 (2016) (citation omitted). Thus, section 14(c) imposes a mandatory duty on the Department to provide for the issuance of subminimum wage certificates “to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment.”
Further, although some states have ended subminimum wage programs, they have done so through state legislation consistent with their respective constitutional frameworks, and the existence of such state laws do not bear on the Department's statutory obligations under section 14(c). See 89 FR at 96489 (listing state legislation). The fact that some States ended their state-law subminimum wage provisions does not necessarily mean such provisions are no longer needed to prevent curtailment of employment opportunities. It may simply mean that those state legislatures made policy tradeoffs between the minimum wage and employment opportunities. Congress may also make that policy tradeoff with respect to certain disabled persons and eliminate the 14(c) program.
Notwithstanding the Department's lack of statutory authority to repeal a congressionally mandated program, the NPRM preliminarily concluded that section 14(c) certificates “are no longer necessary” to prevent curtailment of employment opportunities. Id. at 96467. This conclusion essentially presumes that no employment opportunity for qualifying individuals with disabilities is curtailed by the federal minimum wage.
While the Department cited a substantial decline in the use of section 14(c) certificates—from approximately 424,000 workers in 2001 to approximately 40,579 in 2024—this decline does not establish that no current need remains. See id. at 96473. To the contrary, the continued existence of tens of thousands of workers utilizing the section 14(c) program suggests a nonzero population for whom section 14(c) remains necessary. That inference is bolstered by comments asserting that many individuals with significant disabilities would face unemployment, underemployment, or loss of ancillary services if 14(c) options were eliminated.
Finally, commenters on all sides emphasized the importance of ensuring that sufficient funding, resources, and support services exist to avoid disruptions in employment and the discontinuation of services from CRPs that could occur as a result of a transition away from subminimum wages, as well as to enhance community integration for individuals with disabilities.
In light of these concerns—most notably about the lack of legal authority to tear down what Congress has mandated—the Department concludes that it is most appropriate to withdraw the proposed rule from consideration. Accordingly, the Department is withdrawing the NPRM published on December 4, 2024.

V. Conclusion
By withdrawing the proposed rule, the Department is formally concluding this rulemaking proceeding. If the Department determines in the future that revisions to 29 CFR part 525 are warranted, it will initiate a new rulemaking by publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register .
Accordingly, the NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2024, at 89 FR 96466 is withdrawn.
Donald Harrison,

Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2025-0012; FRL-11140-01-R6]
Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Revisions to Air Pollution Control Rules

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Oklahoma submitted by the State of Oklahoma on November 25, 2024. The submittal addresses updates to the Oklahoma SIP, specifically, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) Title 252 Chapter 100 Subchapter 13, Open Burning.

DATES:
Written comments must be received on or before August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R6-OAR-2025-0012, at https:// www.regulations.gov or via email to shahin.emad@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Mr. Emad Shahin, 214-665-6717, shahin.emad@epa.gov. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available due to docket file size restrictions or content ( e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For information on the revisions addressing open burning, please contact Mr. Emad Shahin, EPA Region 6 Office, Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214-665-6717, shahin.emad@epa.gov. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov. Please call or email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” means the EPA.

I. Background
Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that air quality meets the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These ambient air quality standards are established under CAA section 109 and currently address six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide. A SIP is a collection of regulations and documents used by a state, territory, or local air district to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS, and to fulfill other requirements of the CAA. The SIP must be submitted to EPA for approval and any changes a state makes to the approved SIP also must be submitted to the EPA for approval.
In a letter dated November 22, 2024, the Secretary of Energy and Environment for the State of Oklahoma (the State) submitted a revision of the Oklahoma SIP to the EPA on November 25, 2024. In this action, we are proposing to approve into the SIP the updates to OAC Title 252 Chapter 100 Subchapter 13, Open Burning (OAC 252:100-13).
ODEQ promulgated these updates to the Oklahoma open burning regulations in compliance with the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act and published them in the Oklahoma Register, the official state publication for rulemaking actions. These updated regulations are posted in the docket for this action as part of the State's submittal.

II. The EPA's Evaluation
Subchapter 13 imposes requirements for controlling the open burning of refuse and other combustible materials. The changes made to the open burning rules revised the requirement for using an Air Curtain Incinerator (ACI) for certain open burning operations in the Oklahoma City and Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). An ACI is an incineration unit, operating by forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open integrated combustion chamber or open pit or trench, in which combustion occurs. These regulatory changes clarify the State's open burning rules and comply with Oklahoma Senate Bill 246 (2021) which revised the rules and requirements for the use of ACI for open burn operations. A summary of the updates to the open burning rules follows:
1. OAC 252:100-13-8 requires the use of ACI for land clearing operations and burning of clean wood waste and transported yard brush in non-attainment areas, areas where an ambient air quality monitor has documented a violation of the primary NAAQS, or counties with a population of greater than 500,000. The requirements for using an ACI for land clearing, burning of clean wood, and burning of transported yard brush are now only applicable to Oklahoma and Tulsa counties. Previously, all seven counties in the Oklahoma City MSA and all seven counties in Tulsa MSA were included and required the use of an ACI for open burning operations. If combustible material from land clearing operations, yard brush, clean wood waste, and clean lumber is transported for open burning, OAC 252:100-13-8.1 is modified to clarify that open burning of transported materials shall not be conducted in non-attainment areas, areas where an ambient air quality monitor has documented a violation of the primary NAAQS, or counties with a population of greater than 500,000.
2. OAC 252:100-13-7 modifies the open burning requirements for Land Clearing Operations in OAC 252:100-13-7(4)(B) and the Yard Brush disposal in 100-13-7(7) to reflect that the new requirements are in OAC 252:100-13-8, or if waste is being transported, in OAC:252:100-13-8.1.
3. OAC 252:100-13 adds 13-7(9) to specify the type of material that is allowed to be open burned, namely wood waste, and clean lumber. The type of material allowed to be open burned was previously found within the ACI provisions of 13-8.
4. OAC 252:100-13 moves requirements for the use of ACI in Subchapter 17 and NSPS to Subchapter 13, OAC 252:100-13-8(c).
ODEQ provided an analysis that the SIP revisions are not expected to cause or contribute to nonattainment and reasonable further progress, or interfere with any other applicable requirements of the CAA. ODEQ added that the updates do not change the types of activities that are allowed under the open burning rules and only revise when an ACI is required for land clearing operations and the disposal of clean wood waste and transported yard brush. Oklahoma also determined that the impact of these updated regulations on emissions of PM would be minimal. Oklahoma estimates that prescribed fire in the impacted counties only accounts for 7% of Oklahoma's PM emission because much of those emissions come from land clearing and other types of open burning, such as range management in the Flint Hills grass land. ^1
^1 See ODEQ 110(l) Demonstration for the Removal of the Air Curtain Incinerator requirement in land clearing operations in certain counties of the Oklahoma City and Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Areas in OAC 252:100-13. November 2024, at 14. (Available in docket)
EPA reviewed the SIP submittal and determined that the MSAs for both Tulsa and Oklahoma City are attaining the PM NAAQS. ODEQ maintains an ambient air quality monitoring network that covers both the Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties in addition to the other counties in their broader MSAs. Prior to the updates, areas needed to be designated nonattainment or in a MSA with a population of greater than 900,000 to trigger ACI requirements. With this action, areas with monitors indicating violations of the primary NAAQS or a population greater than 500,000 will trigger ACI requirements.
The revisions to OAC 252:100-13 add clarity and consistency to the State's open burning rules. These revisions do not interfere with continued attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirements. We are proposing to approve these revisions to OAC 252:100-13, Subchapter 13. ODEQ analysis can be found in the docket as part of the state's submittal.
As additional information, EPA has also reviewed monitoring data from 2024 (note this monitoring data hasn't completed all quality assurance for certification) indicating that all monitors in Oklahoma are attaining the standard.

III. Impact on Areas of Indian Country
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Oklahoma Governor requested approval under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, 109 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) (“SAFETEA”), to administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were previously approved by the EPA for areas outside of Indian country. The State's request excluded certain areas of Indian country further described below. In addition, the State only sought approval to the extent that such approval is necessary for the State to administer a program in light of Oklahoma Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014). ^2
^2 In ODEQ v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that under the CAA, a state has the authority to implement a SIP in non-reservation areas of Indian country in the state, where there has been no demonstration of tribal jurisdiction. Under the D.C. Circuit's decision, the CAA does not provide authority to states to implement SIPs in Indian reservations.
The EPA approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to administer all the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs, including the Oklahoma SIP, in the requested areas of Indian country. As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA's approval under SAFETEA does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); (2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or citizen of the Tribe (collectively “excluded Indian country lands”).
The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the extent EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request. ^3 The approval also provided that future revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).
^3 EPA's prior approvals relating to Oklahoma's SIP frequently noted that the SIP was not approved to apply in areas of Indian country (except as explained in the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA ) located in the State. See, e.g., 85 FR 20178, 20180 (April 10, 2020). Such prior expressed limitations are superseded by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request.
As explained in the following section, the EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Oklahoma SIP that include revisions to OAC Title 252 Chapter 100 Subchapter 13 (OAC 252:100-13) Sections 7 and 8, which will apply throughout the state of Oklahoma. Consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA and with EPA's SAFETEA approval, these SIP revisions will apply to areas of Indian country as follows: (1) pursuant to the SAFTEA approval, the SIP revisions will apply to all areas of Indian country in the State of Oklahoma other than the excluded Indian country lands as described above; and (2) pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA, the SIP revisions will also apply to any Indian allotments or dependent Indian communities that are located outside of any Indian reservation and over which there has been no demonstration of Tribal authority.

IV. Proposed Action
Based on a review and analysis of the submittal, we are proposing to approve the revisions to the Oklahoma SIP, submitted on November 25, 2024. Specifically, we are proposing to approve revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapter 13. These revisions were made to clarify the State's open burning rules and comply with Oklahoma Senate Bill 246 (2021) which revised the rules and requirements for the use of ACI for open burn operations. We propose to find that the revisions do not change the types of activities that are allowed under the state's current open burning rules and only revise certain provisions pertaining to when an ACI can be required for land clearing operations and the burning of clean wood waste and yard brush. We are thus proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with section 110 of the Act.

V. Incorporation by Reference
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Oklahoma regulations, as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
This proposed approval of revisions to the Oklahoma SIP, specifically revisions to Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) Title 252 Chapter 100 Subchapter 13, Open Burning, that clarify the State's open burning rules and comply with Oklahoma Senate Bill 246 (2021) will apply, if finalized as proposed, to certain areas of Indian country throughout Oklahoma as discussed in the preamble, and therefore has Tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized Tribal governments because no actions will be required of Tribal governments. This action will also not preempt Tribal law as no Oklahoma tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA, and thus does not have applicable or related Tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (December 7, 2023), the EPA will offer consultation to Tribal governments that may be affected by this action and provide information about this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 26, 2025.
Walter Mason,

Regional Administrator, Region 6.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2025-0240; FRL-12861-01-R1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 2014 and 2017 Periodic Emissions Inventory for 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut. These SIP revisions relate to the 2008 8-Hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SIP revisions consist of the following: 2014 and 2017 calendar year periodic emissions inventories. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES:
Written comments must be received on or before August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2025-0240 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to lillis.patrick@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov , follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov . For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick Lillis, Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 5-MI), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; tel. (617) 918-1067, or by email at lillis.patrick@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The 2008 Ozone NAAQS
B. Statutory and Regulatory Emission Inventory Requirements
II. State's Submittal
III. EPA's Evaluation
A. 2014 Periodic Emissions Inventory
B. 2017 Periodic Emissions Inventory
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background
Ozone is a gas that is formed by the reaction of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, an emission inventory for ozone focuses on the emissions of VOC and NO X , referred to as ozone precursors. These precursors (VOC and NO X ) are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including point sources such as power plants and industrial emissions sources; on-road and off-road mobile sources (motor vehicles and engines); and smaller residential and commercial sources, such as dry cleaners, auto body shops, and household paints, collectively referred to as nonpoint sources (also called area sources).
An emission inventory of ozone is an estimation of actual emissions of air pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone in an area. The emissions inventory provides emissions data for a variety of air quality planning tasks, including establishing baseline emission levels for calculating emission reduction targets needed to attain the NAAQS, determining emission inputs for ozone air quality modeling analyses, and tracking emissions over time to determine progress toward meeting Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements.

A. The 2008 Ozone NAAQS
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS ^1 for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased protection of public health and the environment. ( See 73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997 but is set at a more protective level. Under the EPA's regulations, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. ^2
^1 The primary ozone standards provide protection for children, older adults, and people with asthma or other lung diseases, and other at-risk populations against an array of adverse health effects that include reduced lung function, increased respiratory symptoms and pulmonary inflammation; effects that contribute to emergency department visits or hospital admissions; and mortality. The secondary ozone standards protect against adverse effects to the public welfare, including those related to impacts on sensitive vegetation and forested ecosystems.
^2 For a detailed explanation of the calculation of the 3-year 8-hour average, see 40 CFR part 50, appendix P.
Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA designated as nonattainment any area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data. ^3 With that rulemaking, the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT areas were designated as marginal ozone nonattainment areas. Areas that were designated as marginal nonattainment were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. Any state in which a marginal nonattainment area is located is required to submit certain SIP elements to the EPA in accordance with section 182(a) of the CAA.
^3 See 77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012.

B. Statutory and Regulatory Emission Inventory Requirements
CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A) require submission of base year and periodic emissions inventories, respectively, for each ozone nonattainment area. ^4 States are required to submit a periodic inventory of emissions sources in the nonattainment areas to meet the requirements of CAA § 182(a)(3)(A), as specified in the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) at 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Each periodic inventory shall be submitted no later than the end of each 3-year period after the required submission of the base year inventory for the nonattainment area and this requirement shall apply until the area is redesignated to attainment. ^5 The emissions value included in the inventories shall be actual ozone season day emissions as defined by § 51.1100(cc). ^6 These requirements allow the EPA, based on the states' progress in reducing emissions, to reassess its policies and air quality standards periodically and revise them as necessary. Most important, these inventories will be used to develop and assess new control strategies that states may use in attainment demonstration SIPs for ozone or other pollutants. The inventory may also serve as part of statewide inventories for purposes of regional modeling in transport areas, where the inventory plays an important role in modeling demonstrations for areas classified as nonattainment and outside transport regions.
^4 “For each nonattainment area, the state shall submit a base year inventory as defined by § 51.1100(bb) to meet the emissions inventory requirement of CAA section 182(a)(1). This inventory shall be submitted no later than 24 months after the effective date of designation. The inventory year shall be selected consistent with the baseline year for the RFP plan as required by § 51.1110(b).” (40 CFR 51.115(a)).
^5 CAA § 182(a)(3)(A); 40 CFR 51.1115(b).
^6 40 CFR 51.1115(c); see also Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements, 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).

II. State's Submittal
CAA Sections 182(a)(3) and 172(c)(3) require the periodic submission of emissions inventories for the SIP planning process to address SIP requirements applicable to ozone nonattainment areas in each classification category. The Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT areas were both originally designated marginal nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; initiating a two-year deadline to submit a base year emissions inventory, followed by a periodic emissions inventory every 3-years until the nonattainment areas attain the standard. ^7 EPA approved Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) base year emissions inventory revisions SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on October 1, 2018. ^8
^7 See 77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012.
^8 See 83 FR 49297, October 1, 2018.
On May 3, 2024, CT DEEP submitted SIP revisions that included the 2014 and 2017 periodic emissions inventories for the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment areas. CT DEEP submitted the inventory to meet the CAA section 182(a)(3)(A) obligation to develop a periodic emission inventory every 3-years after the base year inventory until the nonattainment areas are designated as attainment for the NAAQS. The State conducted a public comment period with a public hearing, and the State did not receive any comment during the comment period or the hearing.
Both the 2014 and 2017 periodic emissions inventories include annual and ozone season daily emissions for ozone precursors (NO X , VOC, and CO) from all source categories (point, nonpoint, on-road and nonroad mobile sources, and biogenic emissions) in both the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment areas.

III. EPA's Evaluation

A. 2014 Periodic Emissions Inventory
EPA has reviewed Connecticut's 2014 periodic emissions inventory for consistency with the CAA and regulatory periodic emissions inventory requirements. Forty CFR 51.1115(b) provides that for each nonattainment area, the state shall submit a periodic emission inventory of emissions sources in the area to meet the requirement in CAA section 182(a)(3)(A). Connecticut meets this requirement through CT DEEP's submittal of a 2014 periodic emission inventory on May 3, 2024, that included both nonattainment areas that are violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS. ^9 A copy of CT DEEP's 2014 periodic emission inventory is located in the docket of this proposed rulemaking. Forty CFR 51.1115(c) states that the emissions values included in periodic inventories shall be actual ozone season day emissions as defined by § 51.1100(cc). Connecticut's submittal includes actual ozone season day emissions for ozone precursors in both nonattainment areas. ^{10} EPA's AERR outlines emissions thresholds for point sources that states must report in their periodic emission inventories. ^{11} CT DEEP's submittal includes point source emissions that meet or exceed the emission thresholds as defined in the AERR. ^{12} Furthermore, CT DEEP satisfies any additional requirements of the AERR as defined in 40 CFR 51.1115(e) and in EPA 2017 emissions inventory guidance ^{13} within their 2014 periodic emissions inventory submittal. ^{14}
^9 See State of Connecticut State SIP Revision Cover Letter.
^{10} See CT DEEP's 2014 Emission Inventory Submittal, 1-13—1-15.
^{11} See 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix A.
^{12} See CT DEEP's 2014 Emission Inventory Submittal, Section 2.
^{13} See Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, May 2017, Section 3.5.1 (hereinafter, “EPA Emissions Inventory Guidance”).
^{14} See CT DEEP's 2014 Emission Inventory Submittal.
EPA also reviewed the techniques used by CT DEEP to derive and quality assure the emission estimates used in preparing the 2014 periodic emission inventory. EPA found that CT DEEP followed EPA's 2017 Emissions Inventory guidance ^{15} when developing their statewide 2014 periodic emission inventory. Connecticut documented the procedures used to estimate the emissions for each of the major inventory source types as well as CT DEEP's Quality assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) checks to ensure 2014 emissions data are accurate. ^{16} The documentation of the emission estimation procedures was adequate for EPA to determine that Connecticut followed acceptable procedures to estimate emissions. Specifically, QA/QC checks were performed relative to data collection and analysis and to double counting of emissions from point, area, and mobile sources. CT DEEP performed QA/QC to ensure accuracy of units, unit conversions, transposition of figures, and calculations. For more information on CT DEEP's QA/QC procedures while developing their 2014 emissions inventory, a copy of their submittal is located in the docket of this proposed rulemaking. ^{17}
^{15} See EPA Emissions Inventory Guidance, Section 3.5.
^{16} See CT DEEP's 2014 Emission Inventory Submittal, Sections 2.4, 2.4.3, and 6
^{17} See id.
Connecticut's 2014 periodic emissions inventory includes annual and ozone season daily emissions for ozone precursors (NO X , VOC, and CO) from all source categories (point, nonpoint, on-road and non-road mobile sources, and biogenic emissions) in both the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment areas. These emission estimates are outlined in tables 1-4 below.
Table 1—2014 Annual Emissions (TPY) of Ozone Precursor Compounds in the Greater Connecticut Ozone Non-Attainment Area
Source type | VOC | NO X | CO
Stationary Point Sources | 400 | 2,628 | 1,096
On-Road Mobile Sources | 8,662 | 14,903 | 89,134
Non-Road Mobile Sources | 4,821 | 5,625 | 50,958
Area Sources | 23,843 | 5,861 | 26,252
Biogenic Sources | 39,519 | 402 | 4,584
Total of All Sources | 77,245 | 29,418 | 172,025
Table 2—2014 Summer Day Emissions (Tons/Day) of Ozone Precursor Compounds in the Greater Connecticut Ozone Non-Attainment Area
Source type | VOC | NO X | CO
Stationary Point Sources | 14.2 | 21.4 | 4.7
On-Road Mobile Sources | 24.4 | 41.4 | 276.0
Non-Road Mobile Sources | 29.5 | 32.1 | 368.8
Area Sources | 67.6 | 7.1 | 13.1
Biogenic Sources | 286.9 | 1.7 | 28.3
Total of All Sources | 409.7 | 103.7 | 691.0
Table 3—2014 Annual Emissions (TPY) of Ozone Precursor Compounds in the Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Ozone Non-Attainment Area
Source type | VOC | NO X | CO
Stationary Point Sources | 560 | 3,471 | 770
On-Road Mobile Sources | 9,709 | 16,784 | 100,642
Non-Road Mobile Sources | 5,703 | 7,215 | 72,076
Area Sources | 24,369 | 6,880 | 17,838
Biogenic Sources | 21,127 | 175 | 2,319
Total of All Sources | 61,468 | 34,525 | 193,645
Table 4—2014 Summer Day Emissions (Tons/Day) of Ozone Precursor Compounds in the Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Ozone Non-Attainment Area
Source type | VOC | NO X | CO
Stationary Point Sources | 2.0 | 17.1 | 4.4
On-Road Mobile Sources | 27.2 | 46.1 | 313.0
Non-Road Mobile Sources | 34.7 | 41.6 | 546.5
Area Sources | 72.7 | 8.5 | 14.6
| Biogenic Sources | 156.2 | 0.8 | 14.3
Total of All Sources | 292.8 | 114.0 | 892.8

B. 2017 Periodic Emissions Inventory
EPA has reviewed Connecticut's 2017 periodic emissions inventory for consistency with the CAA and regulatory periodic emissions inventory requirements. Forty CFR 51.1115(b) provides that for each nonattainment area, the state shall submit a periodic emission inventory of emissions sources in the area to meet the requirement in CAA section 182(a)(3)(A). Connecticut meets this requirement through CT DEEP's submittal of a 2017 periodic emission inventory on May 3, 2024, that included both the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment areas. ^{18} A copy of CT DEEP's 2017 periodic emission inventory is located in the docket of this proposed rulemaking. Forty CFR 51.1115(c) states that the emissions values included in periodic inventories shall be actual ozone season day emissions as defined by § 51.1100(cc). Connecticut's submittal includes actual ozone season day emissions for ozone precursors in both nonattainment areas. ^{19} EPA's AERR outlines emissions thresholds for point sources that states must report in their periodic emission inventories. ^{20} CT DEEP's submittal includes point source emissions that meet or exceed the emission thresholds in the AERR. ^{21} Furthermore, CT DEEP satisfies any additional requirements of the AERR as defined in 40 CFR 51.1115(e) and in EPA 2017 emissions inventory guidance ^{22} within their 2017 periodic emissions inventory submittal.
^{18} See State of Connecticut State SIP Revision Cover Letter.
^{19} See CT DEEP's 2017 Emission Inventory Submittal, 1-13—1-15.
^{20} See 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix A.
^{21} See CT DEEP's 2017 Emission Inventory Submittal, Section 2.
^{22} See EPA Emissions Inventory Guidance, Section 3.5.1.
EPA also reviewed the techniques used by CT DEEP to derive and quality assure the emission estimates used in preparing the 2017 periodic emission inventory. EPA found that CT DEEP followed EPA's 2017 Emissions Inventory guidance ^{23} when developing their statewide 2017 periodic emission inventory. Connecticut documented the procedures used to estimate the emissions for each of the major inventory source types as well as CT DEEP's Quality assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) checks to ensure 2017 emissions data are accurate. ^{24} The documentation of the emission estimation procedures was adequate for EPA to determine that Connecticut followed acceptable procedures to estimate emissions. Specifically, QA/QC checks were performed relative to data collection and analysis and to double counting of emissions from point, area, and mobile sources. CT DEEP performed QA/QC to ensure accuracy of units, unit conversions, transposition of figures, and calculations. For more information on CT DEEP's QA/QC procedures while developing their 2017 emissions inventory, a copy of their submittal is located in the docket of this proposed rulemaking. ^{25}
^{23} See id. Section 3.5.
^{24} See CT DEEP's 2017 Emission Inventory Submittal, Section 2.4, 2.4.3, and 6.
^{25} See id.
Connecticut's 2017 periodic emissions inventory includes annual and ozone season daily emissions for ozone precursors (NO X , VOC, and CO) from all source categories (point, nonpoint, on-road and non-road mobile sources, and biogenic emissions) in both the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment areas. These emission estimates are outlined in tables 5-8 below.
Table 5—2017 Annual Emissions (TPY) of Ozone Precursor Compounds in the Greater Connecticut Ozone Non-Attainment Area
Source type | VOC | NO X | CO
Stationary Point Sources | 382 | 2,197 | 938
On-Road Mobile Sources | 6,434 | 8,115 | 70,956
Non-Road Mobile Sources | 3,959 | 4,783 | 48,073
Area Sources | 17,444 | 5,095 | 19,698
Biogenic Sources | 43,387 | 404 | 4,393
Total of All Sources | 71,605 | 20,594 | 144,058
Table 6—2017 Summer Day Emissions (Tons/Day) of Ozone Precursor Compounds in the Greater Connecticut Ozone Non-Attainment Area
Source type | VOC | NO X | CO
Stationary Point Sources | 1.1 | 10.2 | 3.9
On-Road Mobile Sources | 18.1 | 22.2 | 223.9
Non-Road Mobile Sources | 13.5 | 15.4 | 177.6
Area Sources | 53.0 | 6.0 | 10.9
| Biogenic Sources | 308.8 | 1.7 | 25.9
Total of All Sources | 394.5 | 55.6 | 442.2
Table 7—2017 Annual Emissions (TPY) of Ozone Precursor Compounds in the Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Ozone Non-Attainment Area
Source type | VOC | NO X | CO
Stationary Point Sources | 542 | 2,418 | 570
On-Road Mobile Sources | 7,162 | 9,405 | 80,407
Non-Road Mobile Sources | 4,789 | 5,767 | 68,371
Area Sources | 17,049 | 5,856 | 15,534
Biogenic Sources | 23,573 | 181 | 2,393
Total of All Sources | 53,115 | 23,627 | 167,274
Table 8—2017 Summer Day Emissions (Tons/Day) of Ozone Precursor Compounds in the Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Ozone Non-Attainment Area
Source type | VOC | NO X | CO
Stationary Point Sources | 3.6 | 14.0 | 4.7
On-Road Mobile Sources | 20.0 | 25.5 | 256.0
Non-Road Mobile Sources | 16.6 | 19.0 | 262.1
Area Sources | 52.7 | 6.9 | 11.9
Biogenic Sources | 168.3 | 0.8 | 14.1
Total of All Sources | 261.3 | 66.2 | 548.8

IV. Proposed Action
Based on the EPA's review, the 2014 and 2017 periodic year emissions inventories submitted by the state of Connecticut for each ozone nonattainment area include essential data elements, source categories, sample calculations, and report documentation in accordance with CAA sections 182(a)(3)(A) requirements and were developed in accordance with EPA guidance. ^{26} Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve both the 2014 and the 2017 periodic emissions inventories for the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 2008 ozone nonattainment areas.
^{26} See EPA Emissions Inventory Guidance.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 23, 2025.
Mark Sanborn,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0580; FRL-12826-01-R6]
New Source Performance Standards; Delegation of Authority to Oklahoma

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed rule; notice of delegation.

SUMMARY:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to update federal regulations to reflect Oklahoma's current New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) delegation status and the mailing address for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). The ODEQ has submitted updated regulations for the delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of certain NSPS. The updated State regulations incorporate by reference certain NSPS promulgated by EPA, as they existed through June 30, 2023. The delegation of authority for implementation and enforcement applies to sources subject to the delegated NSPS, including those located in certain areas of Indian country as discussed herein.

DATES:
Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0580, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to steib.clovis@epa.gov . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov . The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Clovis Steib, (214) 665-7566; email: steib.clovis@epa.gov . For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets .
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov . While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available due to docket file size restrictions or content ( e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clovis Steib, EPA Region 6 Office, Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214-665-7566, steib.clovis@epa.gov . We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov . Please call or email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background
Section 111(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7411(c)(1), authorizes EPA to delegate to a state the authority to implement and enforce NSPS promulgated by EPA under CAA section 111(b) and codified at part 60 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). CAA section 111(c)(2) states that EPA retains the authority to enforce any applicable NSPS delegated to a state. On March 25, 1982, EPA approved the delegation of authority to implement and enforce NSPS to Oklahoma (1982 NSPS Delegation). See 47 FR 1785 (April 22, 1982). On October 8, 1999, EPA updated Oklahoma's NSPS delegation, including specific provisions setting forth the terms and conditions of the delegation of authority for NSPS responsibility to the ODEQ (1999 NSPS Delegation). See 64 FR 57392 (October 25, 1999). Copies of the initial 1982 NSPS Delegation and the 1999 NSPS Delegation update are included in the docket for this action, both of which contain provisions specifying conditions and limitations applicable to the EPA's delegation of authority to implement and enforce the NSPS in Oklahoma.
Under the terms and conditions of the 1999 NSPS Delegation, “[f]uture provisions of 40 CFR part 60 shall be delegated to ODEQ pursuant to this agreement provided that (1) ODEQ requests delegation and provides copies of the proposed or adopted rules, (2) ODEQ adopts the federal standard without change ( e.g., incorporation by reference) and (3) EPA does not object to the delegation within thirty (30) days of ODEQ's request.” See Specific Provision 1 of the 1999 NSPS Delegation.

II. ODEQ's October 28, 2024 NSPS Delegation Update
By letter dated October 28, 2024, the ODEQ requested an update to its NSPS delegation. ODEQ reaffirmed that it retains all required authorities set forth in 40 CFR 60.4 for delegation of a CAA section 111(c) program and all authority identified in the 1982 and 1999 NSPS Delegations. ODEQ provided copies of the duly adopted state regulations which incorporate specifically identified NSPS found at 40 CFR part 60 into the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:100-2 and OAC 252:100 Appendix Q, as published in the Oklahoma Register on August 15, 2024 (41 Okla. Reg. 2006) with an effective date of September 16, 2024. ^1 These ODEQ regulations are, therefore, at least as stringent as the EPA's rules. See 40 CFR 60.10(a). ODEQ's October 28, 2024, request included the following NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, as they existed through June 30, 2023: 40 CFR part 60, subparts A (except sections 60.4, 60.9, 60.10, and 60.16), D, Da, Db, Dc, E, Ea, Eb, Ec, F, G, Ga, H, I, J, Ja, K, Ka, Kb, L, M, N, Na, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AAa, BB, BBa, CC, DD, EE, GG, HH, KK, KKa, LL, MM, MMa, NN, PP, QQ, RR, SS, TT, UU, VV, VVa, WW, XX, BBB, DDD, FFF, GGG, GGGa, HHH, III, JJJ, KKK, LLL, NNN, OOO, PPP, QQQ, RRR, SSS, TTT, TTTa, UUU, VVV, WWW, XXX, AAAA, CCCC, EEEE, IIII, JJJJ, KKKK, LLLL, OOOO, OOOOa, TTTT, and Appendices A and B to 40 CFR part 60. ^2 In accordance with the authority provided by CAA section 111(c)(1) and consistent with the provisions of the 1982 NSPS Delegation and the 1999 NSPS Delegation, EPA has determined that the ODEQ has met the conditions required for approval of the ODEQ's requested update to its NSPS delegation, as described above. All authorities not affirmatively and expressly requested by the ODEQ are not delegated. In addition, the provisions and conditions contained in the 1982 and 1999 NSPS Delegations remain in effect, with the exception of Specific Provision 7 of the 1999 NSPS Delegation. As more fully discussed in Section III of this document, the delegation to ODEQ to implement and enforce certain NSPS extends to sources or activities located in certain areas of Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.
^1 The ODEQ previously submitted requests to EPA for updates to the Oklahoma NSPS delegation, by letters dated August 23, 2012, March 17, 2015, November 2, 2016, June 6, 2018 (revised with a subsequent June 29, 2018 letter), December 23, 2019, March 23, 2021 (revised with a subsequent September 14, 2021 email), December 2, 2021 (revised with a subsequent October 17, 2022 letter), October 17, 2022, and November 30, 2023. EPA has determined that such requests meet the requirements of the CAA and the 1982 and 1999 NSPS Delegations concerning the approval of EPA's delegation of authority for the enforcement and implementation of the NSPS in Oklahoma. EPA previously proposed an action on ODEQ's request to update its NSPS delegation (85 FR 31423, May 26, 2020); that proposed action is subsumed and incorporated into this proposed action.
^2 See EPA Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0580 in www.regulations.gov .
Furthermore, no authorities are delegated that require rulemaking in the Federal Register to implement, or where Federal overview is the only way to ensure national consistency in the application of the standards. All inquiries and requests concerning implementation and enforcement of the excluded standards in the State of Oklahoma should be directed to the EPA Region 6 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Furthermore, the EPA retains any authority in an individual NSPS that may not be delegated according to provisions of the standard. Finally, EPA retains the authorities stated in the 1982 and 1999 NSPS Delegations.

III. Impacts on Areas of Indian Country
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the State of Oklahoma requested approval under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) (“SAFETEA”), to administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were previously approved by the EPA outside of Indian country. The State's request excluded certain areas of Indian country further described below. In addition, the State only sought approval to the extent that such approval was necessary for the State to administer a program in light of Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014). ^3
^3 In ODEQ v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that under the CAA, states have the authority to implement a SIP in non-reservation areas of Indian country in the state, unless there has been a demonstration of tribal jurisdiction. Under the D.C. Circuit's decision, the CAA does not provide authority to states to implement SIPs in Indian reservations.
The EPA has approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to administer all of the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs in the requested areas of Indian country. As requested by Oklahoma, EPA's approval under SAFETEA does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); (2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or citizen of the Tribe (collectively “excluded Indian country lands”).
The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the extent the EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request. ^4 The approval also provided that future revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).
^4 The EPA's prior approvals relating to Oklahoma's SIP frequently noted that the SIP was not approved to apply in areas of Indian country (except as explained in the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA ) located in the State. See, e.g., 85 FR 20178, 20180 (April 10, 2020). Such prior expressed limitations are superseded by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request.
As explained above, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 60, to reflect the current status of EPA's delegation of authority to ODEQ for the implementation and enforcement of the NSPS and to update ODEQ's mailing address. Consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA and with the EPA's SAFETEA approval, these SIP revisions will apply to areas of Indian country as follows: (1) pursuant to the SAFETEA approval, the SIP revisions will apply to all Indian country in the State of Oklahoma other than the excluded Indian country lands as described above; and (2) pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA, the SIP revisions will also apply to any Indian allotments or dependent Indian communities that are located outside of any Indian reservation and over which there has been no demonstration of tribal authority.

IV. Proposed Action
Apart from the notification of the updated NSPS delegation to the ODEQ as discussed above, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 60 to include a table of the specific NSPS provisions delegated to the ODEQ and update the mailing address for the ODEQ. If finalized as proposed, 40 CFR 60.4(b)(38) will be amended to read: State of Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma, Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677, and a table will be added to 40 CFR 60.4(e) reflecting the NSPS subparts currently delegated to ODEQ.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, EPA previously delegated to the ODEQ the authority to implement and enforce certain NSPS for sources located in Oklahoma, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7411(c)(1); see also 40 CFR 60.4(b). Pursuant the terms and conditions of that delegation, this action informs the public that EPA has found the ODEQ's October 28, 2024, request to update the delegation status for NSPS meets Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Through this action, EPA is proposing to add a table to 40 CFR part 60 listing the specific NSPS currently delegated to the ODEQ and update the ODEQ's address for submittal of documents required under the delegated NSPS provisions. For these reasons, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993;
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because NSPS actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

A. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This amended proposed action will apply, if finalized as proposed, to certain areas of Indian country throughout Oklahoma as discussed in the preamble, and therefore has tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments because no actions will be required of tribal governments. This action will also not preempt tribal law as no Oklahoma tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA, and thus does not have applicable or related tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (December 7, 2023), the EPA has offered consultation to tribal governments that may be affected by this action and provided information about this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 26, 2025.
James McDonald,

Director, Air & Radiation Division, Region 6.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 121
[EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0272; FRL-12813-01-OW]
Establishment of Public Docket and Listening Sessions on Implementation Challenges Associated With Clean Water Act Section 401

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Notice of public listening sessions; request for public comment.

SUMMARY:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will initiate a series of stakeholder listening sessions and invite written feedback on regulatory uncertainty or implementation challenges associated with the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 certification process as defined in the 2023 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule. The Agency will use this input to determine whether guidance or rulemaking are necessary to address identified areas of regulatory uncertainty or implementation challenges regarding the scope of certification. The Agency also seeks stakeholder input related to CWA section 401(a)(2) implementation.

DATES:
Written feedback must be received on or before August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
You may send written feedback, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0272, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting written feedback.
• Email: OW-Docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0272 in the subject line of the message.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-2072. Written feedback received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending written recommendations and additional information on the forthcoming listening sessions, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lauren Kasparek, Oceans, Wetlands and Communities Division, Office of Water (4502-T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)-564-3351; email address: cwa401@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA, also commonly known as the Clean Water Act or CWA) authorizes States ^1 and authorized Tribes ^2 to play a specific role in Federal licensing or permitting processes. Under CWA section 401, a Federal Agency may not issue a license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters, unless the State or Tribe where the discharge would originate either certifies “that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307” of the CWA or waives certification. 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1). When granting a CWA section 401 certification, States and Tribes may include conditions, including “effluent limitations and other limitations, and monitoring requirements” that are necessary to assure that the applicant for a Federal license or permit will comply with applicable provisions of CWA sections 301, 302, 306, and 307, and with “any other appropriate requirement of State law.” Id. at 1341(d).
^1 The CWA defines “state” as “a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(3).
^2 Authorized Tribes refers to Tribes that have been approved for treatment in a manner similar to a State status for CWA section 401. See 33 U.S.C. 1377(e).
Congress originally established the water quality certification requirement in section 21(b) of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. The EPA promulgated regulations implementing this water quality certification requirement in 1971. Congress subsequently enacted CWA section 401 in 1972 amendments to the FWPCA that borrowed from the text of the earlier statutory provision but also differed in material respects. ^3
^3 36 FR 22487 (November 25, 1971), redesignated at 37 FR 21441 (October 11, 1972), further redesignated at 44 FR 32899 (June 7, 1979).
In 2020, the EPA amended its regulations regarding water quality certification at 40 CFR part 121 for the first time since enactment of CWA section 401. Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule, 85 FR 42210 (July 13, 2020). The EPA promulgated revisions to the 2020 Rule in September 2023. Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule (2023 Rule), 88 FR 66558 (September 27, 2023). The 2020 Rule and 2023 Rule differed in material respects, including on several of the issues set out below.
One central aspect of water quality certification is the scope of certification. The scope of certification refers to the extent of a certifying State or authorized Tribe's analysis when it evaluates a request for certification to determine whether it will deny certification, waive certification, or grant certification, including any conditions to include in a grant of certification. The 2023 Rule provides that when a certifying authority reviews a request for certification, the certifying authority “shall evaluate whether the activity will comply with applicable water quality requirements.” 40 CFR 121.3. The 2023 Rule defined “water quality requirements” broadly as “any limitation, standard or other requirement under sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act,” as well as “any Federal and state or Tribal laws or regulations implementing those sections, and any other water quality-related requirement of state or Tribal law.” 40 CFR 121.1(j). It further provides that the certifying authority's evaluation is “limited to the water quality-related impacts from the activity subject to the Federal license or permit, including the activity's construction and operation.” Finally, it provides that a certifying authority “shall include any conditions in a grant of certification necessary to assure that the activity will comply with applicable water quality requirements.” 40 CFR 121.3.
Recently, some stakeholders have raised questions about applications of the 2023 Rule's scope of certification. ^4 The Agency recently released a memorandum titled Clarification regarding Application of Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification to reiterate the EPA's longstanding position that States and Tribes must utilize CWA section 401 only for its statutory purpose—to protect water quality. Memorandum from Peggy S. Browne, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, Clarification regarding Application of Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification, May 21, 2025. As noted in the Memorandum, the Agency is interested in State, Tribal, project proponent, and public input regarding any regulatory uncertainty and implementation challenges related to the 2023 Rule. The Agency intends to use input received through the listening sessions and the recommendations docket announced in this notice to inform future guidance or rulemaking efforts to address regulatory uncertainty or implementation challenges. The Agency will not be providing specific written responses to input received through the listening sessions or recommendations docket.
^4 See, e.g., America Builds: Clean Water Permitting and Project Delivery Hearing before Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 119th Cong. (2025) (statement of Robert D. Singletary, Executive Director, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality; statement of Noah Hanners, Executive Vice President, Nucor Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers).

Questions for Consideration
To assist the Agency in addressing implementation challenges and regulatory uncertainty related to the 2023 Rule's scope of certification as well as in considering experiences related to CWA section 401 implementation, the Agency is seeking input on the following issues:
1. Defining the scope of certification generally and the scope of certification conditions. The rule defines the scope of certification, which includes both the scope of certification review under CWA section 401(a) and the scope of certification conditions under CWA section 401(d), as requiring a certifying authority to “evaluate whether the activity will comply with applicable water quality requirements.” 40 CFR 121.3. However, CWA section 401(a)(1) refers specifically to “discharge into the navigable waters” and requires that “such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of this Act.” Public Law 92-500, 401(a)(1), 86 Stat. 816 (Oct. 18, 1972). Therefore, the Agency is seeking stakeholder input on the 2023 Rule's interpretation of the scope of certification and certification conditions, including but not limited to, the legal rationale for interpreting scope as applicable to the “discharge” versus the “activity” and whether the Agency should clarify or revise its interpretation of scope of certification. The Agency also seeks input on whether justification is necessary to demonstrate that certification conditions included in a certification decision are within the appropriate scope, and whether further clarification is needed on the waters considered in acting on a request for certification, also known as applicable waters. Submission of any examples of specific legal vulnerabilities, implementation challenges, or regulatory uncertainty related to the 2023 Rule are encouraged.
2. Water quality requirements. The rule defines “water quality requirements,” as “any limitation, standard, or other requirement under sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act, any Federal and state or Tribal laws or regulations implementing those sections, and any other water quality-related requirement of state or Tribal law.” 40 CFR 121.1(j). The Agency is seeking stakeholder input on the definition of “water quality requirements” including but not limited to, whether the Agency should further clarify or revise its interpretation of the statutory phrase “other appropriate requirements of State law” from CWA section 401(d), whether the Agency should clarify or revise the definition of “water quality requirements,” and any legal rationale for such clarifications or revisions.
3. Neighboring Jurisdictions. The Agency seeks data or information from stakeholders about how the Agency should consider whether a neighboring jurisdiction's water quality may be affected by discharge for purposes of 401(a)(2) and whether there are parameters to consider in making this determination.
4. Categorical Determinations under 401(a)(2). The Agency requests data or information from stakeholders on whether there are specific types of activities, geographic regions, types of waterbodies, or other types of circumstances, etc., which may support the Agency establishing a categorical determination that the quality of no neighboring jurisdiction's waters may be affected by discharge in such circumstances.
5. Stakeholder Input on 401 Certification Experiences. The Agency seeks data and information from stakeholders on their experiences with the 2023 Rule, including certification procedures, the 401(a)(2) process, and the application of treatment in a similar manner as a state (TAS) solely for section 401, in particular related to areas where challenges were identified, areas for improvement, areas for increased transparency, areas of positive engagement, and best practices or lessons learned from the stakeholder perspective which may assist the Agency in identifying any areas for simplifying certification procedures or improving Agency business processes.
6. Data and Other Information. The Agency requests data or information from stakeholders about the application of the 2023 Rule's scope of certification, including but not limited to, examples of certification decisions issued under the 2023 Rule that are believed to exceed the 2023 Rule's scope of certification.

Outreach
In addition to the solicitation of public comments through the docket, the Agency intends to host two webinar-based listening sessions to solicit feedback on the questions identified above. Stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide input to the Agency on the questions provided above for the Agency's consideration. Information on the listening session dates, times, and registration instructions will be made available at a later date on the EPA's website, located at https://www.epa.gov/cwa-401. Persons or organizations wishing to provide verbal input during a listening session will need to pre-register. Due to the expected number of participants, individuals will be asked to limit their oral presentation to three minutes. Supporting materials and written feedback from those who do not have an opportunity to speak may be submitted to the docket as described above.
Peggy S. Browne,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 51, 54, 61, and 69
[WCB: WC Docket No. 20-71; DA 25-508; FR ID 299746]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks To Refresh Record on Telephone Access Charges

AGENCY:
Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:
Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) invites interested parties to update the record on issues in the Telephone Access Charges proceeding regarding various end-user charges associated with interstate access service offered by incumbent local exchange (LEC) carriers. These charges, called Telephone Access Charges for short, include: the Subscriber Line Charge, the Access Recovery Charge, the Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge, the Line Port Charge, and the Special Access Surcharge.

DATES:
Comments are due on or before August 6, 2025. Reply comments are due on or before August 21, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments identified by WC Docket No. 20-71 using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Parties choosing to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marv Sacks, Pricing Policy Division of the Wireline Communications Bureau, at (202) 418-1520 or via email at marvin.sacks@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This is a summary of a document requesting interested parties to refresh the record in the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 20-71, FCC 20-40, released on April 1, 2020. 85 FR 30899. The full text of the document may be obtained at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-508A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov, or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Synopsis
1. By this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) invites interested parties to update the record on issues raised by the Commission in the 2020 NPRM (85 FR 30899) regarding various end-user charges associated with interstate access service offered by incumbent local exchange (LEC) carriers. These charges, called Telephone Access Charges for short, include: the Subscriber Line Charge, the Access Recovery Charge, the Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge, the Line Port Charge, and the Special Access Surcharge.
2. In the document, the Commission invited comment on its proposal to eliminate ex ante pricing regulation of Telephone Access Charges and require incumbent and competitive LECs to detariff these charges. 47 CFR 51.915(e), 51.917(e), 69.115, 69.152, 69.153, 69.157. In addition, the Commission sought comment on an alternative approach under which it would eliminate ex ante price regulation and require detariffing of Telephone Access Charges only in areas where certain conditions are met. The Commission also sought comment on permissive detariffing of Telephone Access Charges for some categories of carriers. Given that some Telephone Access Charges are used to calculate contributions to the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) and other federal programs, and to calculate some high-cost universal service support, the Commission proposed ways to address these issues. Under this proposal a carriers would have the option to use traffic studies to determine its contributions base rather than the proposed safe harbor.
3. Over the past five years, local exchange carriers' market share has declined while mobile and interconnected VoIP providers' market share has increased. From December 2018 to June 2024, the share of total voice subscribers served by incumbent local exchange carriers decreased from about 10.0% to 4.8%. We seek comment on whether and how these marketplace trends, as well as any state regulatory changes, bear on the Commission's proposals or might affect any interested party's position on the Commission's proposals in the Notice. Has any market consolidation affected parties' positions on the questions in the Notice?
4. We seek to refresh the record on these issues consistent with the Commission's commitment to eliminate outdated and unnecessary regulations and in light of developments that may have occurred since the Notice was released. For instance, the Commission in a Public Notice, GN Docket No. 25-133, DA 25-219, released March 12, 2025, emphasized the importance of evaluating rules based on the following criteria: cost-benefit considerations, whether the rule places disproportionate burdens on regulated entities, experience gained from the rule's implementation, marketplace and technological changes, and whether changes in the broader regulatory context demonstrate that particular Commission rules are unnecessary or inappropriate. We encourage parties to supplement the record with additional comments addressing any of these points as they may relate to the Telephone Access Charges rules and other regulatory requirements at issue in the Notice.
5. The record also contains an alternative proposal filed by Frontier, Windstream and Consolidated (collectively, the Mid-Sized Carriers). We ask the Mid-Sized Carriers to update this proposal, if needed, and we invite any additional related comments. We also encourage the industry to reach a compromise and submit a unified proposal. Finally, parties are encouraged to update the record with any other applicable comments, information or data as a result of any other developments, including state regulatory changes, that may have occurred in the intervening years since this proceeding was initiated.
6. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Notice included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603 of the potential impact on small entities of the Commission's proposals. No party submitted comments. The Bureau invites parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of this request to refresh the record.
7. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding initiated by the Notice shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Irina Asoskov,

Assistant Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
90
127
Monday, July 7, 2025
Notices
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
Agency Information Collection Activities: Special Milk Program for Children

AGENCY:
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of a currently approved collection to determine public participation in the Special Milk Program for Children.

DATES:
Written comments must be received on or before September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Comments may be sent to: Navneet Sandhu, Branch Chief, Project Demonstration Branch, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, Room 739, Alexandria, VA 22314. Comments may also be submitted via email to Navneet.Sandhu@usda.gov. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Navneet Sandhu via email at Navneet.Sandhu@usda.gov or phone 703-305-2728.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Title: 7 CFR part 215, Special Milk Program for Children.
Form Number: FNS-10 and FNS-777 (recordkeeping only).
OMB Number: 0584-0005.
Expiration Date: September 30, 2025.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Abstract: Section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act (CNA) of 1966, (42 U.S.C. 1772) authorizes the Special Milk Program (SMP). It provides for the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to encourage the consumption of fluid milk by children in the United States in: (1) nonprofit schools of high school grade and under; and (2) nonprofit nursery schools, child care centers, settlement houses, summer camps, and similar nonprofit institutions devoted to the care and training of children. The SMP may operate in nonprofit schools and nonprofit childcare institutions that do not already participate in a food service program authorized under the CNA or the National School Lunch Act.
Section 10 of the CNA (42 U.S.C. 1779) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe such regulations as deemed necessary to carry out this Act and the National School Lunch Act. Pursuant to that provision, the Secretary has issued 7 CFR part 215, which sets forth policies and procedures for the administration and operation of the SMP. State and local operators of the SMP are required to meet Federal reporting and accountability requirements. This information collection is required to administer and operate this program. The Program is administered at the State, school food authority (SFA), and childcare institution levels; and operations include the submission of applications and agreements, submission and payment of claims, and maintenance of records. The reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with this revision decreased by approximately 8,103 hours relative to the previous submission, from 13,326 estimated burden hours to 5,223 estimated burden hours due to fewer State agencies participating in the SMP. The total estimated annual responses decreased by approximately 32,623 responses from 88,407 to 55,784 responses primarily due to fewer State agencies participating in the SMP. All reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the SMP are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget and are in force. This is a revision of a currently approved collection.
Forms FNS-10 and FNS-777 collect information that are associated with this information collection; however, these forms, and the reporting burden associated with them, are approved under OMB Control Number 0584-0594 Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS) (expiration date September 30, 2026). The recordkeeping burden associated with these forms is covered in this collection.
Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Government and nonprofit institutions. Respondent groups identified include State agencies, School Food Authorities (SFAs), and childcare institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,547 (43 State agencies, 1,504 Nonprofit Institutions).
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent (Reporting): 1.64. Respondents either submit 1 or 24 responses, depending on the activity.
Estimated Total Annual Responses (Reporting): 2,536.
Estimated Time per Response (Reporting): .25 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents (Reporting): 634 hours.
Estimated Number of Recordkeepers: 1,547 (43 State agencies, 1,504 Nonprofit Institutions).
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent (Recordkeeping): 34.42. The number of responses per respondent range from 1 to 790, depending upon the activity.
Estimated Total Annual Records: 53,248.
Estimated Time per Response (Recordkeeping): .086 hours (approximately 5 minutes). The estimated times range from 5 to 20 minutes, depending up on the activity.
Estimated Total Annual Recordkeeping Burden: 4,589 hours.
Grand Total Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden: 5,223 hours.
Current OMB Inventory for Part 215: 13,325 hours.
Difference in Burden hours with this Renewal: −8,103 hours.
Refer to the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent:
Regulation | Burden activity | Estimated number of respondents/ recordkeepers | Estimated responses per respondent | Estimated total annual responses | Estimated hours per response | Estimated total annual hours | Previously approved under 0584-0005 | Difference due to adjustment
Reporting
State Agency
215.5(a) | SA requests funds to pay SMP claims | 43 | 24 | 1,032 | 0.25 | 258 | 324 | −66
School Food Authority/Non-Profit Child Care Institution (local site)
215.7(c) | SFA/CCI submits an application to SA to operate the SMP | 1,504 | 1 | 1,504 | 0.25 | 376 | 861 | −485
Totals | | 1,547 | 1.64 | 2,536 | 0.25 | 634 | 1,185 | −551
Recordkeeping
State Agency
215.7 | SA maintains applications submitted by, and agreements executed with, SFAs and sponsors | 43 | 63.8 | 2,743.4 | 0.0835 | 229.07 | 345 | −115.93
215.11(b) | SA maintains documentation of compliance reviews, site visits and Program assistance | 43 | 5 | 215 | 0.167 | 35.91 | 54 | −18.10
215.11(c)(1) | SA maintains Program records as necessary to support the reimbursement payments and reports | 43 | 790 | 33,970 | 0.0835 | 2,836.50 | 4266 | −1,429.51
215.12 | SA maintains all records of action taken on disallowed claims | 43 | 2 | 86 | 0.334 | 28.72 | 36 | −7.28
215.13(a) | A-133 audit, audit plan, and management evaluations including records of the receipt and expenditure of funds under the program | 43 | 1 | 43 | 0.25 | 10.75 | 14 | −3.25
School Food Authority/Non-Profit Child Care Institution (local site)
215.7 | SFA/CCI maintains Program records to support claims | 1,504 | 10 | 15,040 | 0.0835 | 1,255.84 | 6,890 | −5,634.16
215.14a | SFA compliance with procurement requirements | 1,151 | 1 | 1,151 | 0.167 | 192.217 | 536 | −343.783
Recordkeeping Total | | 1,547 | 34.42 | 53,248.4 | 0.086 | 4,589.00 | 12,141 | −7,552.00
Grand Total | | 1,547 | 36.06 | 55,784.4 | 0.094 | 5,223.00 | 13,326 | −8,103.00
James C. Miller,

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
CIVIL RIGHTS COLD CASE RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
[Agency Docket Number: CRCCRRB-2025-0018-N]
Notice of Formal Determination on Records Release

AGENCY:
Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board.

ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
The Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board received 4,106 pages of records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) related to four civil rights cold case incidents to which the Review Board assigned the unique identifiers 2024-003-011, 2024-003-028, 2024-003-046, and 2024-003-064. NARA, the Department of Justice, and the FBI proposed 936 postponements in the records related to incidents 2024-003-011 and 2024-003-046. The Department of Justice and the FBI later withdrew 175 of the postponements the agencies proposed after consultation with the Review Board. On June 20, 2025 and June 27, 2025, the Review Board met and approved 264 postponements and portions of 63 additional postponements, and determined that 3,959 pages in full and 147 pages in part should be publicly disclosed in the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection. By issuing this notice, the Review Board complies with the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018 that requires the Review Board to publish in the Federal Register its determinations on the disclosure or postponement of records in the Collection no more than 14 days after the date of its decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephannie Oriabure, Chief of Staff, Civil Rights Cold Case, Records Review Board, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, (771) 221-0014, info@coldcaserecords.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Incident identifier | Postponement identifier | Review board decision
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0001 and 2025-NARA-03-0002 | Reject.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0003 | Approve.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0004 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0005 | Reject.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0006 | Approve.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0007 and 2025-NARA-03-0008 | Reject.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0009 and 2025-NARA-03-0010 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0011 through 2025-NARA-03-0016 | Approve.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0017 through 2025-NARA-03-0019 | Reject.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0020 through 2025-NARA-03-0025 | Approve.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0026 | Reject.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0027 through 2025-NARA-03-0030 | Approve.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0031 | Reject.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0032 | Approve.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0033 | Reject.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0034 through 2025-NARA-03-0037 | Approve.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0038 through 2025-NARA-03-0040 | Reject.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0041 and 2025-NARA-03-0042 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0043 through 2025-NARA-03-0071 | Approve.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0072 | Reject.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0073 | Approve.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0074 through 2025-NARA-03-0077 | Reject.
2024-003-011 | 2025-NARA-03-0078 through 2025-NARA-03-0082 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0730 through 2024-DOJ-03-0733 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0734 through 2024-DOJ-03-0749 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0750 through 2024-DOJ-03-0752 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0753 through 2024-DOJ-03-0759 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0760 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0761 through 2024-DOJ-03-0763 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0764 through 2024-DOJ-03-0766 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0767 through 2024-DOJ-03-0769 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0770 and 2024-DOJ-03-0771 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0772 through 2024-DOJ-03-0787 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0788 through 2024-DOJ-03-0791 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0792 through 2024-DOJ-03-0799 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0800 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0801 and 2024-DOJ-03-0802 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0803 through 2024-DOJ-03-0806 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0807 through 2024-DOJ-03-0814 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0815 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0816 through 2024-DOJ-03-0818 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0819 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0820 and 2024-DOJ-03-0821 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0822 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0823 through 2024-DOJ-03-0841 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0842 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0843 through 2024-DOJ-03-0850 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0851 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0852 and 2024-DOJ-03-0853 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0853a | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0853b | Reject.
| 2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0854 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0854a | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0855 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0856 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0857 and 2024-DOJ-03-0858 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0859 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0860 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0861 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0862 and 2024-DOJ-03-0863 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0864 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0865 and 2024-DOJ-03-0866 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0867 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0868 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0869 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0870 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0871 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0872 and 2024-DOJ-03-0873 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0873a | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0873b | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0874 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0874a | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0875 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0876 and 2024-DOJ-03-0877 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0878 through 2024-DOJ-03-0881 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0882 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0883 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0884 through 2024-DOJ-03-0886 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0887 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0888 and 2024-DOJ-03-0889 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0890 and 2024-DOJ-03-0891 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0892 and 2024-DOJ-03-0893 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0894 through 2024-DOJ-03-0897 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0898 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0899 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0900 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0901 and 2024-DOJ-03-0902 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0903 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0904 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0905 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0906 and 2024-DOJ-03-0907 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0908 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0909 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0910 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-DOJ-03-0911 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1671 through 2024-FBI-03-1673 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1674 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1675 through 2024-FBI-03-1713 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1714 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1715 through 2024-FBI-03-1728 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1729 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1730 through 2024-FBI-03-1744 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1745 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1746 and 2024-FBI-03-1747 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1748 through 2024-FBI-03-1750 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1751 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1752 and 2024-FBI-03-1753 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1754 through 2024-FBI-03-1770 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1771 through 2024-FBI-03-1773 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1774 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1775 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1776 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1777 and 2024-FBI-03-1778 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1779 through 2024-FBI-03-1796 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1797 through 2024-FBI-03-1804 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1805 and 2024-FBI-03-1806 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1807 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1808 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1809 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1810 and 2024-FBI-03-1811 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1812 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1813 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1814 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1815 and 2024-FBI-03-1816 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1817 | Approve.
| 2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1818 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1819 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1820 and 2024-FBI-03-1821 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1822 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1823 through 2024-FBI-03-1829 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1830 through 2024-FBI-03-1832 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1833 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1834 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1835 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1836 and 2024-FBI-03-1837 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1838 through 2024-FBI-03-1841 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1842 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1843 through 2024-FBI-03-1845 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1846 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1847 and 2024-FBI-03-1848 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1849 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1850 through 2024-FBI-03-1853 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1854 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1855 through 2024-FBI-03-1858 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1859 and 2024-FBI-03-1860 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1861 through 2024-FBI-03-1864 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1865 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1866 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1867 and 2024-FBI-03-1868 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1869 through 2024-FBI-03-1874 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1875 through 2024-FBI-03-1877 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1878 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1879 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1880 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1881 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1882 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1883 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1884 through 2024-FBI-03-1888 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1889 and 2024-FBI-03-1890 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1891 and 2024-FBI-03-1892 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1893 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1894 and 2024-FBI-03-1895 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1896 through 2024-FBI-03-1900 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1901 through 2024-FBI-03-1903 | Approved with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1904 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1905 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1906 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1907 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1908 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1909 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1910 through 2024-FBI-03-1914 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1915 through 2024-FBI-03-1917 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1918 and 2024-FBI-03-1919 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1920 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1921 and 2024-FBI-03-1922 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1923 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1924 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1925 and 2024-FBI-03-1926 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1927 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1928 through 2024-FBI-03-1932 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1933 through 2024-FBI-03-1937 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1938 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1939 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1940 through 2024-FBI-03-1942 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1943 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1944 and 2024-FBI-03-1945 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1946 and 2024-FBI-03-1947 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1948 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1949 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1950 through 2024-FBI-03-1954 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1955 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1956 and 2024-FBI-03-1957 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1958 and 2024-FBI-03-1959 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1960 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1961 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1962 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1963 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1964 and 2024-FBI-03-1965 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1966 and 2024-FBI-03-1967 | Withdrawn by agency.
| 2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1968 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1969 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1970 and 2024-FBI-03-1971 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1972 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1973 and 2024-FBI-03-1974 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1975 and 2024-FBI-03-1976 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1977 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1978 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1979 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1980 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1981 and 2024-FBI-03-1982 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1983 and 2024-FBI-03-1984 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1985 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1986 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1987 through 2024-FBI-03-1993 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1994 and 2024-FBI-03-1995 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1996 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1997 and 2024-FBI-03-1998 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-1999 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2000 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2001 through 2024-FBI-03-2006 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2007 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2008 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2009 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2010 through 2024-FBI-03-2013 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2014 and 2024-FBI-03-2015 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2016 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2017 and 2024-FBI-03-2018 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2019 through 2024-FBI-03-2021 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2022 and 2024-FBI-03-2023 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2024 and 2024-FBI-03-2025 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2026 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2027 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2028 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2029 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2030 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2031 through 2024-FBI-03-2034 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2035 through 2024-FBI-03-2044 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2045 through 2024-FBI-03-2048 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2049 through 2024-FBI-03-2057 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2058 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2059 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2060 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2061 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2062 through 2024-FBI-03-2076 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2077 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2078 and 2024-FBI-03-2079 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2080 and 2024-FBI-03-2081 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2082 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2083 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2084 and 2024-FBI-03-2085 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2086 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2087 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2088 through 2024-FBI-03-2094 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2095 and 2024-FBI-03-2096 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2097 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2098 and 2024-FBI-03-2099 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2100 through 2024-FBI-03-2103 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2104 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2105 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2106 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2107 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2108 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2109 through 2024-FBI-03-2112 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2113 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2114 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2115 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2116 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2117 | Approved with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2118 and 2024-FBI-03-2119 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2120 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2121 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2122 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2123 and 2024-FBI-03-2124 | Reject.
| 2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2125 and 2024-FBI-03-2126 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2127 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2128 and 2024-FBI-03-2129 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2130 and 2024-FBI-03-2131 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2132 and 2024-FBI-03-2133 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2134 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2135 and 2024-FBI-03-2136 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2137 through 2024-FBI-03-2142 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2143 through 2024-FBI-03-2146 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2147 and 2024-FBI-03-2148 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2149 and 2024-FBI-03-2150 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2151 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2152 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2153 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2154 through 2024-FBI-03-2157 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2158 and 2024-FBI-03-2159 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2160 and 2024-FBI-03-2161 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2162 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2163 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2164 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2165 through 2024-FBI-03-2172 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2173 through 2024-FBI-03-2175 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2176 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2177 through 2024-FBI-03-2180 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2181 through 2024-FBI-03-2188 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2189 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2190 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2191 through 2024-FBI-03-2193 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2194 through 2024-FBI-03-2197 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2198 through 2024-FBI-03-2205 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2206 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2207 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2208 through 2024-FBI-03-2210 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2211 through 2024-FBI-03-2214 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2215 through 2024-FBI-03-2222 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2223 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2224 and 2024-FBI-03-2225 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2226 through 2024-FBI-03-2228 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2229 through 2024-FBI-03-2232 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2233 through 2024-FBI-03-2240 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2241 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2242 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2243 and 2024-FBI-03-2244 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2245 and 2024-FBI-03-2246 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2247 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2248 and 2024-FBI-03-2249 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2250 and 2024-FBI-03-2251 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2252 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2253 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2254 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2255 through 2024-FBI-03-2260 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2261 and 2024-FBI-03-2262 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2263 through 2024-FBI-03-2265 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2266 through 2024-FBI-03-2268 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2269 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2270 through 2024-FBI-03-2272 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2273 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2274 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2275 and 2024-FBI-03-2276 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2277 and 2024-FBI-03-2278 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2279 | Approve with changes.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2280 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2281 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2282 and 2024-FBI-03-2283 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2284 and 2024-FBI-03-2285 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2286 and 2024-FBI-03-2287 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2288 and 2024-FBI-03-2289 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2290 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2291 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2292 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2293 through 2024-FBI-03-2298 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2299 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2300 through 2024-FBI-03-2303 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2304 through 2024-FBI-03-2311 | Withdrawn by agency.
| 2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2312 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2313 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2314 and 2024-FBI-03-2315 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2316 through 2024-FBI-03-2319 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2320 | Withdrawn by agency.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2321 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2322 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2323 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2324 through 2024-FBI-03-2330 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2331 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2332 through 2024-FBI-03-2334 | Reject.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2335 | Approve.
2024-003-046 | 2024-FBI-03-2336 | Reject.
Authority: Pub. L. 115-426, 132 Stat. 5489 (44 U.S.C. 2107).
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Stephannie Oriabure,

Chief of Staff.
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

AGENCY:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION:
Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Michigan Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public business meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to continue discussing and potentially voting on the unit policy and procedural rules document, and to begin discussing potential civil rights topics for study.

DATES:
Monday, July 14, 2025, from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES:
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Registration Link (Audio/Visual): https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_3Z8v-YL_Tn-BBsFvgXljKQ.
Join by Phone (Audio Only): (833) 435-1820 (USA Toll-Free); Webinar ID: 161 895 6016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Wojnaroski, Designated Federal Officer, at mwojnaroski@usccr.gov or (202) 618-4158.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Sarah Villanueva, Support Specialist, at svillanueva@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Melissa Wojnaroski at mwojnaroski@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (202) 618-4158.
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website, https://bit.ly/43f9RaP. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at the above phone number.

Agenda
I. Welcome & Roll Call
II. Civil Rights Discussion
III. Public Comment
IV. Next Steps
V. Adjournment
Dated: July 2, 2025.
David Mussatt,

Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Notice of Public Meeting of the New Jersey Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

AGENCY:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

ACTION:
Notice of Virtual Business Meeting.

SUMMARY:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the New Jersey Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose is for the committee to discuss topic ideas.

DATES:
Thursday, July 17, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. EDT.

ADDRESSES:
Registration Link (Audio/Visual): https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_JCLvY_bnQ2eXYeyQCWhNBg.
Join by Phone (Audio Only): 1-833-435-1820 USA Toll Free; Webinar ID: 160 592 8469 #.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at vmoreno@usccr.gov or 1-434-515-0204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Committee meetings are available to the public through a registration link (above). Any interested members of the public may attend committee meetings. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of each meeting will include a list of persons who are present. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email ebohor@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at ebohor@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at 1-202-656-8937.
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website, https://tinyurl.com/3ev8d9n9. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at ebohor@usccr.gov.

Agenda
I. Welcome & Roll Call
II. Committee Discussion: Topic Ideas
III. Next Steps
IV. Public Comment
V. Other Business
VI. Adjourn
Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of committee members' limited availability in the summer months.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
David Mussatt,

Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[S-203-2025]
Foreign-Trade Zone 173; Application for Subzone; PINNACLEMOD LLC; Aberdeen, Washington
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Port of Grays Harbor, grantee of FTZ 173, requesting subzone status for the facility of PINNACLEMOD LLC, located in Aberdeen, Washington. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 1, 2025.
The proposed subzone (39.97 acres) is located at 901, 1017, and 1209 South Boone Street, Aberdeen, Washington. A notification of proposed production activity has been submitted and is being processed under 15 CFR 400.37 (Doc. B-28-2025). The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 173.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Qahira El-Amin of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: ftz@trade.gov. The closing period for their receipt is August 18, 2025. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted through September 2, 2025.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at Qahira.El-Amin@trade.gov.
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-831]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, in Part, and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2023-2024

AGENCY:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that sales of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) from Taiwan have been made at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024. Commerce also preliminarily finds that Yieh United Steel Company (YUSCO) had no shipments to the United States during the POR. Additionally, Commerce preliminarily determines that 22 companies for which we initiated a review had no suspended entries during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

DATES:
Applicable July 7, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Maciuba, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20203; telephone: (202) 482-0413.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
On July 27, 1999, Commerce published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty (AD) order on SSSSC from Taiwan. ^1 On July 1, 2024, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order. ^2 On August 14, 2024, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an AD review of 83 producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. ^3 This review covers three producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. Commerce selected two companies, Shiner Steel International Ltd. (Shiner Steel) and Yuan Long Stainless Steel Corp (Yuan Long) for individual examination. ^4 On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative review by 90 days. ^5 The current deadline for the preliminary results of this review is July 1, 2025.
^1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from United Kingdom, Taiwan, and South Korea, 64 FR 40555 (July 27, 1999) ( Order ).
^2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review and Join Annual Inquiry Service List, 89 FR 54437 (July 1, 2024).
^3 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 89 FR 66035 (August 14, 2024) ( Initiation Notice ).
^4 See Memorandum, “Respondent Selection,” dated March 4, 2023.
^5 See Memorandum, “Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings,” dated December 9, 2024.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. ^6
^6 See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan; 2023-2024,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the Order is certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. For the complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. On September 26, 2024, North American Stainless and Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, (collectively, domestic interested parties) timely partially withdrew their request for an administrative review for 58 companies. ^7 Because no other party requested a review these 58 companies, we are rescinding the administrative review for these companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). ^8 For a complete list of those companies for which all requests for administrative review were withdrawn, see Appendix II.
^7 See Domestic Interested Parties' Letter, “Domestic Interested Parties' Partial Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated September 26, 2024.
^8 See Appendix II for the list of companies for which we are rescinding the review due to the withdrawal of all review requests.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. ^9 Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the AD assessment rate calculated for the review period. ^{10} Therefore, to conduct an administrative review of a company, there must be a suspended entry that Commerce can instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate at the AD assessment rate calculated for the POR. ^{11}
^9 See, e.g., Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Greece: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2022-2023, 89 FR 4274 (January 23, 2024).
^{10} See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
^{11} See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
On January 3, 2025, we notified parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review, in part, with respect to the 22 companies listed in Appendix III because there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by these companies during the POR. We invited interested parties to comment. ^{12} No parties commented on our intent to rescind the review, in part. In the absence of suspended entries of subject merchandise from these companies during the POR, we are rescinding, in part, the administrative review for the 22 companies listed in Appendix III, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
^{12} See Memorandum, “Notice of Intent to Rescind Review, In Part,” dated January 3, 2025.

Methodology
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce has preliminarily relied entirely upon facts otherwise available with adverse inferences (AFA) for both Shiner Steel and Yuan Long.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Preliminary Determination of No Shipments
Based on record information, we preliminarily determine that YUSCO did not have knowledge that the subject merchandise was destined for the United States, and, thus, YUSCO is not considered the exporter of subject merchandise during the POR for the purposes of this review. ^{13} Therefore, we preliminarily determine that YUSCO made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Consistent with Commerce's practice, we find that it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to YUSCO, but rather to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review. ^{14}
^{13} See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
^{14} See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954, 23958 (May 6, 2003) ( AD Assessment ).

Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024:
Exporter/producer | Weighted- average dumping margin (percent)
Shiner Steel International Ltd | 21.10
Yuan Long Stainless Steel Ltd | 21.10

Disclosure
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily applied total AFA to the mandatory respondents Shiner Steel and Yuan Long in this administrative review, and the applied AFA rate is based on a rate calculated for a respondent in a prior segment of this proceeding, there are no calculations to disclose.

Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice. ^{15} Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. ^{16} Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; and (2) a table of authorities. ^{17} All briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.
^{15} See 19 CFR 351.309.
^{16} See 19 CFR 351.309(d); see also Administrative Protective Order, Service, and Other Procedures in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29, 2023) ( APO and Service Final Rule ).
^{17} See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after publication of this notice. ^{18} Hearing requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined. ^{19} Parties should confirm by telephone the date and time of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.
^{18} See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
^{19} See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the publication date of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless otherwise extended.

Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, AD duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. ^{20} The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of AD duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. ^{21}
^{20} See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
^{21} See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. ^{22}
^{22} For a full discussion of this practice, see AD Assessment.
Further, if we continue to find in the final results that YUSCO had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any suspended entries that entered under their AD case number ( i.e., at YUSCO's cash deposit rate) at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the exporters listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or previous segment, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 12.61 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. ^{23} These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
^{23} See Order.

Final Results of Review
Unless the deadline is otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised by interested parties in the written comments, within 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register . ^{24}
^{24} See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act; and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 30, 2025.
Christopher Abbott,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments
V. Discussion of the Methodology
VI. Recommendation

Appendix II

Companies for Which All Review Requests Were Withdrawn
1. Broad International Resources Ltd.
2. Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd.
3. Cheng Feng Plastic Co., Ltd.
4. Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd.
5. Chien Shing Stainless Co.
6. China Steel Corporation
7. Chung Hung Steel Corp.
8. Chyang Dah Stainless Co., Ltd.
9. Da-Tsai Stainless Steel Co., Ltd.
10. Dah Shi Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.
11. DB Schenker (HK) Ltd. Taiwan Branch
12. DHV Technical Information Co., Ltd.
13. Froch Enterprises Co., Ltd.
14. Gang Jou Enterprise Co., Ltd.
15. Genn Hann Stainless Steel Enterprise Co., Ltd.
16. Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.
17. Goldioceans International Co., Ltd.
18. Gotosteel Ltd.
19. Grace Alloy Corp.
20. Hung Shuh Enterprises Co., Ltd.
21. Hwang Dah Steel Inc.
22. Jie Jin Stainless Steel Industry Co., Ltd.
23. JJSE Co., Ltd.
24. KNS Enterprise Co., Ltd.
25. Lancer Ent. Co., Ltd.
26. Lien Chy Laminated Metal Co., Ltd.
27. Lien Kuo Metal Industries Co., Ltd.
28. Lih Chan Steel Co., Ltd.
29. Lung An Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd.
30. Master United Corp.
31. Maytun International Corp.
32. NKS Steel Ind. Ltd.
33. PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd.
34. Po Chwen Metal
35. Prime Rocks Co., Ltd.
36. S More Steel Materials Co., Ltd.
37. Shih Yuan Stainless Steel Enterprise Co., Ltd.
38. Silineal Enterprises Co., Ltd.
39. Stanch Stainless Steel Co., Ltd.
40. Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Company Ltd.
41. Tah Lee Special Steel Co., Ltd.
42. Taiwan Nippon Steel Stainless
43. Tang Eng Iron Works Company, Ltd.
44. Teng Yao Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.
45. Tibest International Inc.
46. Ton Yi Industrial Corp.
47. Tsai See Enterprise Co., Ltd.
48. Vasteel Enterprises Co., Ltd.
49. Vulcan Industrial Corporation
50. Wuu Jing Enterprise Co., Ltd.
51. Yc Inox Co., Ltd.
52. Yes Stainless International Co., Ltd.
53. Yieh Mau Corporation
54. Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd.
55. Yu Ting Industrial Co., Ltd.
56. Yue Seng Industrial Co., Ltd.
57. Yuen Chang Stainless Steel Co., Ltd.
58. Yung Fa Steel & Iron Industry Co., Ltd.

Appendix III

Companies Which Had No Reviewable Entries During the POR
1. Auto Star Ind. Co., Ltd.
2. Best Win International
3. Chang Mien Industries Co., Ltd.
4. Ching Hann Ind Co., Ltd.
5. China Steel Global Trading Corporation
6. Dinli Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.
7. Dyaco International Inc.
8. General Merchandise Consolidators Inc.
9. Gold Classic Enterprise Ltd.
10. Hwa Yang Stainless Steel Ind. Corp.
11. Intai Technology Corp.
12. Jk Industrial Development Corp.
13. Meglobe Co., Ltd.
14. Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd.
15. Sunmax Industrial Inc.
16. Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd
17. Top Sunny Group Corp.
18. Unity Special Steel Co., Ltd.
19. Wexcel International Co., Ltd.
20. Yieh Corp; Yieh Trading Corporation
21. Yeou Yih Steel Co., Ltd.
22. Yeou Ting Industries Co., Ltd.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-555-003, A-557-830, A-549-851, A-552-841]
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination; Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules From Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders; Correction

AGENCY:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION:
Notice; correction.

SUMMARY:
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published a notice in the Federal Register on June 24, 2025, in which Commerce announced the amended final antidumping duty determination on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam), and antidumping duty orders on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. This notice corrects for: (1) the inadvertent omission of the separate scope Appendix, applicable to the antidumping order for Vietnam, and (2) the omission of exclusion language with respect to respondent Hanwha Q Cells Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., applicable to the antidumping order for Malaysia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Cohen (Vietnam), Office III; telephone: (202) 482-4521; Hermes Panilla (Cambodia), Office I; telephone: (202) 482-3477; Stephen Bailey (Thailand), Office IV; telephone: (202) 482-0193; and Patrick Barton (Malaysia), Office III; telephone: (202) 482-0012; AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
On June 24, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Orders on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. ^1
^1 See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination; Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules From Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders, 90 FR 26786 (June 24, 2025) ( Orders ).
In that notice, we identified the products covered by the Orders as solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, for which a complete description was provided in the sole appendix to the notice. The complete scope description contained in the appendix reflected the correct scope of the antidumping duty orders for Cambodia, Malaysia, and Thailand. However, as a result of the prior incorporation of exclusion language specific to the antidumping duty proceeding regarding Vietnam, the final scope of the antidumping duty investigation on solar cells from Vietnam included additional language not reflected in the final scope of the antidumping duty investigations on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Therefore, the complete scope description referenced in the Federal Register notice of the Orders, and contained in the appendix thereto, inadvertently omitted a second appendix (and reference thereto) containing distinct scope language applicable to the antidumping duty order on Vietnam.
Further, Commerce inadvertently omitted language that subject merchandise produced and exported by Hanwha Q Cells Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. is excluded from the antidumping duty order on Malaysia in the “Estimated Weighted-Average Margins” and “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” sections.

Correction

Correction 1: Vietnam Scope
In the Federal Register of June 24, 2025, in FR Doc 2025-11588, on page 26787, in the first column under the heading “Scope of the Orders,” correct the second sentence to read as follows:
For a complete description of the scope of the orders, see Appendix I and Appendix II to this notice.
Further, replace the entirety of the Appendix to FR Doc 2025-11588, which begins in the first column of page 26790 and continues to the second column of page 26791, with the appendices to this notice (Appendix I and Appendix II).

Correction 2: Malaysia Exclusion
In the Federal Register of June 24, 2025, in FR Doc. 2025-11588 on page 26788, in the third column, correct the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation and Cash Deposits” section to include the following paragraph at the end of that section:
Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin is zero for subject merchandise produced and exported by Hanwha Q Cells Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., entries of shipments of subject merchandise from this producer/exporter combination are excluded from the antidumping duty order on subject merchandise from Malaysia. This exclusion will not be applicable to merchandise exported to the United States by this respondent in any other producer/exporter combination, or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination.
Additionally, in the Federal Register of June 24, 2025, in FR Doc. 2025-11588 on page 26788, correct the table of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Malaysia to include a footnote as follows:

Malaysia
^2 After the final determination, Commerce directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection not to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Hanwha Q Cells Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. Subject merchandise from this producer/exporter combination is excluded from the antidumping duty order on Malaysia. See “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section, supra.
Producer/exporter | Weighted- average dumping margin (percent) | Cash deposit rate (adjusted for subsidy offsets) (percent)
Hanwha Q Cells Malaysia Sdn. Bhd | 0.00 | Not applicable. ^2
Jinko Solar Technology Sdn. Bhd | 8.59 | 1.92.
Baojia New Energy Manufacturing Sdn | * 81.24 | 81.24.
CRC Solar Cell Joint Stock Company | * 81.24 | 81.24.
Lynter Enterprise | * 81.24 | 81.24.
Mega PP Sdn. Bhd | * 81.24 | 81.24.
All Others | 8.59 | 1.92.
* Rates based on facts available with adverse inferences.

Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Christopher Abbott,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Orders (Cambodia, Malaysia, and Thailand)
The merchandise covered by these orders is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
These orders cover crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the orders.
Excluded from the scope of the orders are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Also excluded from the scope of the orders are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm ^2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.
Additionally, excluded from the scope of the orders are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm ^2 to 33,782 mm ^2 with one black wire and one red wire (each of type 22 AWG or 24 AWG not more than 206 mm in length when measured from panel extrusion), and not exceeding 2.9 volts, 1.1 amps, and 3.19 watts. For the purposes of this exclusion, no panel shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports.
Also excluded from the scope of the orders are:
1. Off grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm ^2 per panel; (C) do not include a built-in inverter; (D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in either an 8 mm male barrel connector, or a two-port rectangular connector with two pins in square housings of different colors; (E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell; and (F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features, and foam for transport); and
2. Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm ^2 per panel; (C) do not include a built-in inverter; (D) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell; and (E) each panel is (1) permanently integrated into a consumer good; (2) encased in a laminated material without stitching, or (3) has all of the following characteristics: (i) the panel is encased in sewn fabric with visible stitching, (ii) includes a mesh zippered storage pocket, and (iii) includes a permanently attached wire that terminates in a female USB-A connector.
In addition, the following CSPV panels are excluded from the scope of the orders: off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 80 watts per panel; (B) a surface area of less than 5,000 square centimeters (cm ^2 ) per panel; (C) do not include a built-in inverter; (D) do not have a frame around the edges of the panel; (E) include a clear glass back panel; and (F) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in a twoport rectangular connector.
Additionally excluded from the scope of these orders are off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (1) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel; (2) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm ^2 per panel; (3) no built-in inverter; (4) an integrated handle or a handle attached to the package for ease of carry; (5) one or more integrated kickstands for easy installation or angle adjustment; and (6) a wire of not less than 3 meters either permanently connected or attached to the package that terminates in an 8 mm diameter male barrel connector.
Also excluded from the scope of these orders are off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 180 watts per panel at 155 degrees Celsius; (B) a surface area of less than 16,000 square centimeters (cm ^2 ) per panel; (C) include a keep-out area of approximately 1,200 cm ^2 around the edges of the panel that does not contain solar cells; (D) do not include a built-in inverter; (E) do not have a frame around the edges of the panel; (F) include a clear glass back panel; (G) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in a two-port rounded rectangular, sealed connector; (H) include a thermistor installed into the permanently connected wire before the twoport connector; and (I) include exposed positive and negative terminals at opposite ends of the panel, not enclosed in a junction box.
Further excluded from the scope of the orders are:
1. Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm ^2 per panel, (C) do not include a built-in inverter, (D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in waterproof connector with a cylindrical positive electrode and a rectangular negative electrode with the positive and negative electrodes having an interlocking structure, (E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell, and (F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features); and
2. Off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm ^2 per panel, (C) no built-in inverter, (D) an integrated handle or a handle attached to the package for ease of carry, (E) one or more integrated kickstands for easy installation or angle adjustment, and (F) a wire either permanently connected or attached to the package terminates in waterproof connector with a cylindrical positive electrode and a rectangular negative electrode with the positive and negative electrodes having an interlocking structure.
Also excluded from the scope of the orders are:
1. Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm ^2 per panel, (C) do not include a built-in inverter, (D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in waterproof connector with a cylindrical positive electrode and a rectangular negative electrode with the positive and negative electrodes having an interlocking structure, (E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell, and (F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features); and
2. Small off-grid panels with glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) surface area from 3,450 mm ^2 to 33,782 mm ^2 , (B) with one black wire and one red wire (each of type 22 AWG or 28 AWG not more than 350 mm in length when measured from panel extrusion), (C) not exceeding 10 volts, (D) not exceeding 1.1 amps, (E) not exceeding 6 watts, and (F) for the purposes of this exclusion, no panel shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports.
Additionally excluded from the scope of the orders are:
1. Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 175 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 9,000 cm ^2 per panel, (C) do not include a built-in inverter, (D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in waterproof connector with a cylindrical positive electrode and a rectangular negative electrode with the positive and negative electrodes having an interlocking structure; (E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell, and (F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features); and
2. Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics, (A) a total power output of 220 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm ^2 per panel, (C) do not include a built-in inverter, (D) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell, and (E) each panel is encased in a laminated material without stitching.
Also excluded from the scope of these orders are off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics:
1. a total power output of 20 watts or less per panel;
2. a maximum surface area of 1,000 cm ^2 per panel;
3. does not include a built-in inverter for powering third party devices
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in a subject country are covered by the orders; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in a subject country from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the orders.
Also excluded from the scope of these orders are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012); and Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 73017 (December 7, 2012).
Merchandise covered by the orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8541.42.0010 and 8541.43.0010. Imports of the subject merchandise may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8501.71.0000, 8501.72.1000, 8501.72.2000, 8501.72.3000, 8501.72.9000, 8501.80.1000, 8501.80.2000, 8501.80.3000, 8501.80.9000, 8507.20.8010, 8507.20.8031, 8507.20.8041, 8507.20.8061, and 8507.20.8091. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

Appendix II

Scope of the Order (Vietnam)
The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
This order covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the order.
Excluded from the scope of the order is thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Also excluded from the scope of the order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm ^2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.
Additionally, excluded from the scope of the order is panels with surface area from 3,450 mm ^2 to 33,782 mm ^2 with one black wire and one red wire (each of type 22 AWG or 24 AWG not more than 206 mm in length when measured from panel extrusion), and not exceeding 2.9 volts, 1.1 amps, and 3.19 watts. For the purposes of this exclusion, no panel shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports.
Also excluded from the scope of the order is:
(1) Off grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm ^2 per panel; (C) do not include a built-in inverter; (D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in either an 8 mm male barrel connector, or a two-port rectangular connector with two pins in square housings of different colors; (E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell; and (F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features, and foam for transport); and
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm ^2 per panel; (C) do not include a built-in inverter; (D) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell; and (E) each panel is (1) permanently integrated into a consumer good; (2) encased in a laminated material without stitching, or (3) has all of the following characteristics: (i) the panel is encased in sewn fabric with visible stitching, (ii) includes a mesh zippered storage pocket, and (iii) includes a permanently attached wire that terminates in a female USB-A connector.
In addition, the following CSPV panels are excluded from the scope of the order: off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 80 watts per panel; (B) a surface area of less than 5,000 square centimeters (cm ^2 ) per panel; (C) do not include a built-in inverter; (D) do not have a frame around the edges of the panel; (E) include a clear glass back panel; and (F) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in a two port rectangular connector.
Additionally excluded from the scope of this order is off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (1) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel; (2) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm ^2 per panel; (3) no built-in inverter; (4) an integrated handle or a handle attached to the package for ease of carry; (5) one or more integrated kickstands for easy installation or angle adjustment; and (6) a wire of not less than 3 meters either permanently connected or attached to the package that terminates in an 8 mm diameter male barrel connector.
Also excluded from the scope of this order is off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 180 watts per panel at 155 degrees Celsius; (B) a surface area of less than 16,000 square centimeters (cm ^2 ) per panel; (C) include a keep-out area of approximately 1,200 cm ^2 around the edges of the panel that does not contain solar cells; (D) do not include a built-in inverter; (E) do not have a frame around the edges of the panel; (F) include a clear glass back panel; (G) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in a two-port rounded rectangular, sealed connector; (H) include a thermistor installed into the permanently connected wire before the twoport connector; and (I) include exposed positive and negative terminals at opposite ends of the panel, not enclosed in a junction box.
Further excluded from the scope of the order is:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm ^2 per panel, (C) do not include a built-in inverter, (D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in waterproof connector with a cylindrical positive electrode and a rectangular negative electrode with the positive and negative electrodes having an interlocking structure, (E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell, and (F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features); and
(2) Off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm ^2 per panel, (C) no built-in inverter, (D) an integrated handle or a handle attached to the package for ease of carry, (E) one or more integrated kickstands for easy installation or angle adjustment, and (F) a wire either permanently connected or attached to the package terminates in waterproof connector with a cylindrical positive electrode and a rectangular negative electrode with the positive and negative electrodes having an interlocking structure.
Also excluded from the scope of the order is:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm ^2 per panel, (C) do not include a built-in inverter, (D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in waterproof connector with a cylindrical positive electrode and a rectangular negative electrode with the positive and negative electrodes having an interlocking structure, (E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell, and (F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features); and
(2) Small off-grid panels with glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) surface area from 3,450 mm ^2 to 33,782 mm ^2 , (B) with one black wire and one red wire (each of type 22AWG or 28 AWG not more than 350 mm in length when measured from panel extrusion), (C) not exceeding 10 volts, (D) not exceeding 1.1 amps, (E) not exceeding 6 watts, and (F) for the purposes of this exclusion, no panel shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports.
Additionally excluded from the scope of the order is:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 175 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 9,000 cm ^2 per panel, (C) do not include a built-in inverter, (D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in waterproof connector with a cylindrical positive electrode and a rectangular negative electrode with the positive and negative electrodes having an interlocking structure; (E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell, and (F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features); and
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics, (A) a total power output of 220 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm ^2 per panel, (C) do not include a built-in inverter, (D) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell, and (E) each panel is encased in a laminated material without stitching.
Also excluded from the scope of this order is off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics: 1. a total power output of 20 watts or less per panel; 2. a maximum surface area of 1,000 cm ^2 per panel; 3. does not include a built-in inverter for powering third party devices.
Additionally excluded from the scope of the order is off-grid greenhouse shade tracking systems with between 3 and 30 flexible CSPV panels, each permanently affixed to an outer aluminum frame, with (A) no glass cover, (B) no back sheet, (C) no built-in inverter, (D) power output of 220 watts or less per panel, (E) surface area of 10,000 cm squared or less per panel, (F) two clear plastic trusses per panel permanently attached running lengthwise on the same side as the junction boxes, (G) visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 mm per each cell on same side as junction box, (H) two rectangular plastic junction boxes per panel with at least 16 diodes per panel, and (I) encased in an aluminum frame and laminated without stitching.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in a subject country are covered by the order; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in a subject country from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the order.
Also excluded from the scope of this order is all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012); and Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 73017 (December 7, 2012).
Merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8541.42.0010 and 8541.43.0010. Imports of the subject merchandise may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8501.71.0000, 8501.72.1000, 8501.72.2000, 8501.72.3000, 8501.72.9000, 8501.80.1000, 8501.80.2000, 8501.80.3000, 8501.80.9000, 8507.20.8010, 8507.20.8031, 8507.20.8041, 8507.20.8061, and 8507.20.8091. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XE995]
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Exempted Fishing Permits

AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:
Notice of receipt of two applications for exempted fishing permits; request for comments.

SUMMARY:
NMFS announces the receipt of two applications for exempted fishing permits (EFPs) from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). If granted, the EFPs would authorize limited recreational harvest of red snapper outside of any Federal recreational season in South Atlantic Federal waters and exempt that harvest from the red snapper recreational bag and possession limits, recreational annual catch limits (ACLs), general reporting requirements for charter vessels and headboats, and accountability measures (AMs). FWC's projects are intended to test alternative recreational management strategies that could be used by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) to reduce the number of discards of red snapper and other federally managed snapper-grouper species, create additional opportunities to participate in sustainable recreational harvest, and improve angler satisfaction.

DATES:
Written comments must be received on or before July 22, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments on the applications, identified by [NOAA-NMFS-2025-0175] by either of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter “NOAA-NMFS-2025-0175”, in the Search box. Click the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to Mary Vara, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information ( e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Electronic copies of the EFP applications may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/bycatch/south-atlantic-red-snapper-exempted-fishing-permits-2025-2026. This notice discusses applications 2 and 3 on the website.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Vara, 727-824-5305, mary.vara@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The EFPs are requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.
The projects described in these EFP requests are a continuation of two of several projects that NMFS funded in 2024 based on a notice of funding opportunity that NMFS published during the fall of 2023, seeking projects that would explore new approaches to better understand and reduce red snapper dead discards and increase fishing opportunities in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. NMFS noticed the EFP applications for those two FWC projects in the Federal Register (89 FR 23977, April 5, 2024) and subsequently issued the EFPs.
In 2021, a stock assessment was completed for South Atlantic red snapper (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 73, 2021) which indicated that the South Atlantic red snapper stock was undergoing overfishing and was overfished. NMFS completed an update of the SEDAR 73 (2021) assessment in December 2024 (SEDAR 73 Update Assessment [2024]). The update assessment indicates that the stock is still experiencing overfishing, is no longer overfished, and is still rebuilding. On June 11, 2025, NMFS published in the Federal Register the final rule to implement Amendment 59 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic (90 FR 24527). Among other measures, Amendment 59 revised the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield proxy for determining overfishing, and as a result, the red snapper stock is no longer classified as undergoing overfishing. Discard mortality continues to be the primary source of fishing mortality, with a high number of discards coming from the recreational sector. Therefore, NMFS has identified a need for improved data to support the evaluation of alternative management strategies that could be used to reduce recreational discards of red snapper and other managed snapper-grouper species, ensure opportunities for sustainable harvest, and improve angler satisfaction.
Considering this need, the FWC has proposed two projects that would accomplish the following objectives: (1) Directly collaborate with members of the snapper-grouper recreational sector and collect catch and discard information at a representative scale within the snapper-grouper fishery; (2) Recruit recreational fishermen to test a unique snapper-grouper aggregate recreational bag limit to and its impact on reducing the magnitude of snapper-grouper regulatory discards; (3) Allow recreational fishermen in these projects to harvest red snapper outside of the Federal red snapper recreational season, accompanied by a mandatory reporting requirement and provisions for validation and proof of participation; (4) Develop a unique web-based application to record information from project participants; (5) Develop an education course required for all project participants that highlights best fishing practices, species identification, and methods to safely descend fish experiencing barotrauma; and (6) Evaluate recreational fisherman satisfaction through pre- and post-participation surveys and semi-structured interviews with project participants.
NMFS notes that this notification of receipt of applications for EFPs encompasses two FWC projects. Each of these projects is identical in project scope, purpose, and exempted Federal regulations. The primary differences between the two requested projects are location of the project and the maximum allowed number of recreational fishing trips and allowed harvest of red snapper per participant for each location.
One proposed project boundary is offshore of the east coast of Florida from the Florida/Georgia state line south to latitude 28°35.1′ North in the Atlantic Ocean (due east of the NASA Vehicle Assembly Building, Cape Canaveral, Florida). The other project boundary is offshore of the east coast of Florida from latitude 28°35.1′ North in the Atlantic Ocean (due east of the NASA Vehicle Assembly Building, Cape Canaveral, Florida) south to the Dry Tortugas, the southern boundary of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council jurisdictional waters (50 CFR 600.105(c)). The project locations include state and Federal waters, but FWC expects that the majority of snapper-grouper harvest and fishing effort would occur in Federal waters.
The EFPs would begin on August 1, 2025, and end on September 30, 2026. FWC would solicit applications from individual recreational fishermen who would be entered into a lottery to participate in either study. The application and lottery process, both administered by FWC, would occur once every 3 months and FWC would select 100 participants for each 3-month study. Participants must be 18 years of age, and would be screened by the FWC for resource violations. Selected participants in the northern study would be referred to as the “Experimental Hot Spot Fleet” and participants in the southern study would be referred to as the “Southeast Florida Snapper Grouper Fleet.” Each selected participant would be required to hold a valid saltwater recreational fishing license issued by the State of Florida (or be state exempt), have declared themselves a Florida State Reef Fish Survey angler, and take an educational course aimed at reducing discard mortality of snapper-grouper species. The EFPs would only apply to recreational fishermen who apply for and are selected to be part of FWC's Experimental Hot Spot Fleet or Southeast Florida Snapper-Grouper Fleet. Therefore, under each EFP, for each 3-month period, FWC would be able to account for and provide NMFS with a list of participants ( e.g., state license, registration of each vessel and vessel name during designated fishing trips, name of participants and contact information, etc. ) to be covered under each EFP before operations begin under the EFPs.
Each participant in the Experimental Hot Spot Fishing Fleet would be able to take a maximum of three recreational fishing trips per 3-month period. Each participant in the Southeast Florida Snapper-Grouper Fleet would be able to take a maximum of two recreational fishing trips per 3-month period. At the end of the second 3-month period of the project, FWC would evaluate how many red snapper were harvested, and, if the number of red snapper harvested is below the maximum allowed per quarter (600 for the Southeast Florida Snapper-Grouper Fleet and 1,200 for the Experimental Hot Spot Fishing Fleet), then FWC would consider increasing the number of participants in a project fleet in the subsequent 3-month period by a corresponding amount of any underage in harvest.
For both fleets, participants would be permitted to harvest no more than 10 fish under a unique snapper-grouper aggregate recreational bag limit per person per day in state and Federal waters combined, including 3 red snapper for the Southeast Florida Snapper-Grouper Fleet and 4 red snapper for the Experimental Hot Spot Fleet described below. Participants would be required to stop directed snapper-grouper recreational trips once their unique aggregate snapper-grouper recreational bag limit has been reached, and they would not be allowed to target or harvest any snapper-grouper species managed by the Council for the remainder of the trip. Participants may then target other species such as coastal migratory pelagics and dolphinfish. All participants in the Experimental Hot Spot Fishing Fleet would be required to fish with a single-hook rig with a circle hook when fishing with natural bait. If approved, the EFPs would exempt recreational fishermen participating in FWC's Experimental Hot Spot Fleet or Southeast Florida Snapper-Grouper Fleet from the Federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.176(b)(1) through (b)(5)(snapper-grouper reporting regulations), 50 CFR 622.183(b)(5) (recreational sector closures for red snapper), 50 CFR 622.187(b)(9) (bag and possession limits for red snapper), and 50 CFR 622.193(y)(2) (ACLs and AMs for red snapper). The FWC is not requesting exemptions from any Federal regulations other than these. Project participants would have to abide by all fishery regulations otherwise not exempted from these studies.
Under the EFPs, the unique 10-fish snapper-grouper aggregate recreational bag limit requested by FWC is as follows:
• Up to 3 red snapper for the Experimental Hot Spot Fleet or 4 red snapper for the Southeast Florida Snapper-Grouper Fleet;
• Only 1 fish can be gag, black grouper, or scamp;
• Up to 2 fish can be red grouper, yellowfin grouper, yellowmouth grouper, coney, graysby, red hind, or rock hind;
• Only 1 fish can be red porgy, blueline tilefish, or golden tilefish;
• Only 1 fish can be greater amberjack;
• Up to 3 fish can be lesser amberjack, almaco jack, or banded rudderfish;
• Up to 5 fish can be black sea bass;
• Up to 5 fish can be gray triggerfish;
• Up to 7 fish can be grunts;
• Up to 7 fish can be Atlantic spadefish or bar jack;
• Up to 7 fish can be porgies (excluding red porgy);
• Up to 7 fish can be schoolmaster snapper, gray snapper, lane snapper, yellowtail snapper, queen snapper, silk snapper, or blackfin snapper;
• Up to 5 fish can be vermilion snapper, cubera snapper, or mutton snapper.
Until the unique snapper-grouper aggregate recreational bag limit is reached, all species within the snapper-grouper fishery, except those with regulatory closures, could be harvested by participants. Should a regulatory closure occur for any species (other than red snapper), project participants would be prohibited to harvest that species. The requested recreational bag limits within FWC's proposed 10-fish snapper-grouper aggregate bag limit do not exceed current Federal recreational bag limits for any of the included snapper-grouper species. FWC intends that this unique aggregate recreational bag limit would cause recreational fishermen to reach their daily recreational bag limit faster, which would then result in them stopping fishing for snapper-grouper species. FWC expects this to then lead to reduced discards and enhanced fisherman satisfaction across the snapper-grouper recreational sector. Throughout the duration of the proposed projects, a maximum of 4,800 South Atlantic red snapper would be allowed to be harvested over 1,200 Experimental Hot Spot Fleet trips, and a maximum of 2,400 South Atlantic red snapper would be allowed to be harvested over 800 Southeast Florida Snapper-Grouper Fleet trips.
Recreational fishermen could choose the date and time of each trip within each 3-month period of the project. Prior to taking a fishing trip, the selected participant, using their unique FWC provided identification number, must notify FWC 24 hours in advance of a planned trip and report the date and state registration number of the vessel they intend to fish from in order to receive an FWC authorization document, which must then be available to present to law enforcement if requested, either at sea or dockside. Selected participants could also elect to take their fishing trips on a charter vessel or headboat (for-hire). Aboard that for-hire vessel, only participants who have been selected to participate in an EFP and declared they are taking a trip authorized under an EFP on the identified for-hire vessel could take red snapper. As the vessel, private or for-hire, with the project participant onboard is returning to port, the participant would be required to hail in and let FWC know the estimated time and location of arrival. Upon return to port from a trip, project participants would be required to submit catch and discard data to the FWC within 48 hours through an FWC web-based application. To evaluate recreational fishermen satisfaction, FWC social scientists would conduct pre- and post-participation surveys and randomly select a subset of participants in each group to participate in semi-structured interviews.
NMFS finds the applications warrants further consideration based on a preliminary review. Possible conditions the agency may impose on the EFPs, if granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition on fishing within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones without additional authorization.
A final decision on issuance of the EFPs will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the applications, consultations with the appropriate fishery management agencies of the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that the activities to be taken under the EFPs are consistent with all other applicable laws.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Kelly Denit,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XE994]
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Exempted Fishing Permit

AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:
Notice of receipt of an application for exempted fishing permit; request for comments.

SUMMARY:
NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). If granted, the EFP would authorize limited recreational harvest of red snapper outside of any Federal recreational season in South Atlantic Federal waters and exempt that harvest from the red snapper recreational bag and possession limits, recreational annual catch limits (ACLs), general reporting requirements for charter vessels and headboats, and accountability measures (AMs). FWC's project is intended to test alternative recreational management strategies that could be used by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) to reduce the number of discards of red snapper and other federally managed snapper-grouper species, create additional opportunities to participate in sustainable recreational harvest, and improve angler satisfaction.

DATES:
Written comments must be received on or before July 22, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments on the application, identified by [NOAA-NMFS-2025-0174] by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Visit https://www.regulations.gov and enter “NOAA-NMFS-2025-0174”, in the Search box. Click the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to Mary Vara, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information ( e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Electronic copies of the EFP application may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/bycatch/south-atlantic-red-snapper-exempted-fishing-permits-2025-2026 . This notice discusses application 1 on the website.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Vara, 727-824-5305, mary.vara@noaa.gov .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.
The project described in this EFP request is a continuation of one of several projects that NMFS funded in 2024 based on a notice of funding opportunity that NMFS published during the fall of 2023, seeking projects that would explore new approaches to better understand and reduce red snapper dead discards and increase fishing opportunities in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. NMFS noticed the EFP application for that FWC project in the Federal Register (89 FR 23979, April 5, 2024) and subsequently issued an EFP.
In 2021, a stock assessment was completed for South Atlantic red snapper (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 73, 2021) which indicated that the South Atlantic red snapper stock was undergoing overfishing and was overfished. NMFS completed an update of the SEDAR 73 (2021) assessment in December 2024 (SEDAR 73 Update Assessment [2024]). The update assessment indicates that the stock is still experiencing overfishing, is no longer overfished, and is still rebuilding. On June 11, 2025, NMFS published in the Federal Register the final rule to implement Amendment 59 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic (90 FR 24527). Among other measures, Amendment 59 revised the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield proxy for determining overfishing, and as a result, the red snapper stock is no longer classified as undergoing overfishing. Discard mortality continues to be the primary source of fishing mortality, with a high number of discards coming from the recreational sector. Therefore, NMFS has identified a need for improved data to support the evaluation of alternative management strategies that could be used to reduce recreational discards of red snapper and other managed snapper-grouper species, ensure opportunities for sustainable harvest, and improve angler satisfaction.
Considering this need, FWC has proposed this project to accomplish the following objectives: (1) Collaborate with recreational vessel captains and recreational fishermen to collect catch and discard information within the snapper-grouper fishery; (2) Recruit private recreational and charter vessel captains to test a unique snapper-grouper aggregate recreational bag limit and its impact on reducing the magnitude of regulatory discards; (3) Allow project participants to harvest red snapper outside of the Federal red snapper recreational season, accompanied by a mandatory reporting requirement and provisions for validation and proof of participation; (4) Develop a unique web-based application to record information from project participants; (5) Develop an education course required for all project participants; and (6) Evaluate recreational fishermen satisfaction through pre- and post-participation surveys and semi-structured interviews with project participants.
The EFP would begin on August 1, 2025, and end on September 30, 2026. The project location would occur offshore of the east coast of Florida and include state and Federal waters from the Florida/Georgia state line south to a line running east from the NASA General Assembly Building in Cape Canaveral, Florida. For this project, FWC proposes to create a “Study Fleet” of six private recreational vessels, six charter vessels, and one headboat vessel that would each take up to four fishing trips per quarter (a 3-month project period). The sampling period for the entire study would be 12 months and thus each quarter would last 3 months. Study Fleet fishing trips for a selected private vessel or charter vessel would be limited to a maximum of 6 recreational fishermen per vessel (excluding the captain and crew of charter vessels), and all recreational fishermen onboard a selected vessel would be participants in the study. Headboat vessels take more than 6 paying passengers, and all recreational fishermen onboard a selected vessel would be participants in the study. All recreational fishermen on project vessels would be required to fish with a single hook rig with a circle hook.
During these trips, a recreational fisherman onboard a vessel would be allowed to harvest no more than 10 fish per person per day under a unique snapper-grouper aggregate recreational bag limit in state and Federal waters. Both private recreational and charter vessels would each be allowed to retain a recreational vessel limit of 24 South Atlantic red snapper, and headboats would be allowed to retain a recreational vessel limit of 36 South Atlantic red snapper, regardless of the number of persons onboard the vessel. While trying to obtain the unique 10-fish snapper-grouper aggregate bag limit, each recreational fishermen onboard a selected vessel would be required to keep all snapper-grouper species that meet legal requirements, such as minimum size limits, and would retain all red snapper caught, up to the 24 red snapper recreational vessel limit for private and charter vessels and the 36 red snapper recreational vessel limit for headboat vessels while also not exceeding each individual's aggregate recreational bag limit. Each recreational fisherman on a Study Fleet vessel trip would be required to stop directed snapper-grouper fishing once the unique snapper-grouper aggregate recreational bag limit of 10-fish has been met or the recreational vessel limit of up to the 24 red snapper for private recreational and charter vessels and 36 red snapper for headboat vessels has been met, whichever occurs first. After meeting one of these limits, participants may target other species such as coastal migratory pelagics and dolphinfish, but they would not be allowed to target or harvest any snapper-grouper species managed by the Council for the remainder of the trip.
If approved, the EFP would exempt recreational fishermen participating in FWC's Study Fleet from the Federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.176(b)(1) through (5) (snapper-grouper reporting regulations), 50 CFR 622.183(b)(5) (recreational sector closures for red snapper), 50 CFR 622.187(b)(9) (bag and possession limits for red snapper), and 50 CFR 622.193(y)(2) (ACLs and AMs for red snapper). The FWC is not requesting exemptions from any Federal regulations other than these. Participants would have to abide by all fishery regulations otherwise not exempted from this study.
Under the EFP, the unique 10-fish snapper-grouper aggregate recreational bag limit requested by FWC is as follows:
• Only 1 fish can be gag, black grouper, or scamp;
• Up to 2 fish can be red grouper, yellowfin grouper, yellowmouth grouper, coney, graysby, red hind, or rock hind;
• Only 1 fish can be red porgy, blueline tilefish, or golden tilefish;
• Only 1 fish can be greater amberjack;
• Up to 3 fish can be lesser amberjack, almaco jack, or banded rudderfish;
• Up to 5 fish can be black sea bass;
• Up to 5 fish can be gray triggerfish;
• Up to 7 fish can be grunts;
• Up to 7 fish can be Atlantic spadefish or bar jack;
• Up to 7 fish can be porgies (excluding red porgy);
• Up to 7 fish can be schoolmaster snapper, gray snapper, lane snapper, yellowtail snapper, queen snapper, silk snapper, or blackfin snapper;
• Up to 5 fish can be vermilion snapper, cubera snapper, or mutton snapper.
Until the unique snapper-grouper aggregate recreational bag limit is reached or the red snapper recreational vessel limit is reached, all species within the snapper-grouper fishery, except those with regulatory closures, could be recreationally harvested by participants. Species not listed above would not count towards the FWC's proposed 10-fish snapper-grouper aggregate recreational bag limit. Should a regulatory closure occur for any species (other than red snapper), participants would be prohibited to harvest that species. FWC intends that this unique aggregate recreational bag limit would cause recreational fishermen to reach their daily recreational bag limit faster, which would then result in them stopping fishing for snapper-grouper species. FWC expects this to then lead to reduced discards and enhanced fisherman satisfaction across the snapper-grouper recreational sector. Throughout the duration of the proposed project, a maximum of 5,184 South Atlantic red snapper would be allowed to be harvested on Study Fleet trips.
If the project is approved, FWC would solicit applications from captains of private recreational vessels, charter vessels, and headboat vessels that fish within the proposed study location. All project charter vessels and headboat vessels would need to have a valid Federal Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit for South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper species and a Florida Saltwater Charter License prior to participating in the FWC Study Fleet. Any private recreational captain, charter vessel captain, or headboat vessel captain that does not have a resource violation as determined by FWC would be eligible to participate in the FWC Study Fleet.
From public applications, the FWC would select the vessels to be part of the FWC Study Fleet each quarter based on the area intended to be fished, vessel type, and the homeport of these vessels. The selection criteria are intended to result in a comprehensive coverage of the study location. The terms of the EFP would apply to those persons onboard the vessels that are selected to be part of the FWC Study Fleet. All recreational fishermen fishing from private recreational vessels would be required to have a valid Florida recreational fishing license (or be exempt) and be signed up for Florida's State Reef Fish Survey prior to fishing aboard a trip as part of the FWC Study Fleet. FWC will have specific requirements regarding captains and crew and private anglers who must view and complete an online educational course. Therefore, FWC would be able to account for and provide NMFS with a list of participants ( e.g., state license, registration of each vessel and vessel name during designated fishing trips, name of participants and contact information, etc. ) to be covered under the EFP before operations begin under the EFP.
Prior to taking a FWC Study Fleet fishing trip, each captain would have to coordinate the date/dates of the trip with FWC. Using their unique FWC provided identification number, captains would be required to notify FWC 24 hours prior to a planned project trip and report the date and state registration number of the vessel they intend to fish from in order to receive an FWC authorization document, which must be available to present to law enforcement if requested at-sea or dockside. When the FWC Study Fleet vessel returns to port, the captain must hail in and let FWC know the estimated time and location of arrival. Upon return to port from a trip, the captain and all recreational fishermen aboard a project vessel would be required to allow FWC to collect biological samples from harvested fish and conduct interviews. All captains would be required to report data through an FWC web-based application about their fishing trip within 48 hours of returning to port. Headboat vessels would be required to identify the number and name of people ( i.e., captain and crew) who will record data on a Study Fleet trip.
NMFS finds the application warrants further consideration based on a preliminary review. Possible conditions the agency may impose on the EFP, if granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition on fishing within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones without additional authorization.
A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the appropriate fishery management agencies of the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that the activities to be taken under the EFP are consistent with all other applicable laws.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Kelly Denit,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No.: PTO-C-2025-0016]
Request for Comments on OECD's Working Party on Countering Illicit Trade (WP-CIT) Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Countering Illicit Trade in Counterfeit Goods on Online Marketplaces; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY:
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.

ACTION:
Request for comments; reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is reopening the comment period for the notice titled “Request for Comments on OECD's Working Party on Countering Illicit Trade (WP-CIT) Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Countering Illicit Trade in Counterfeit Goods on Online Marketplaces” that was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2025. The comment period is reopened until August 26, 2025.

DATES:
The comment period for the notice published on May 19, 2025, at 90 FR 21291, is reopened until August 26, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
(1) Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (at the homepage, enter “PTO-C-2025-0016” in the “Search” box, select the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments). The materials in the docket will not be edited to remove identifying or contact information, and the USPTO cautions against including any information in an electronic submission that the submitter does not want publicly disclosed. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted only in Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, or Adobe PDF formats. Comments containing references to studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Please do not submit additional materials. If you want to submit a comment with confidential business information that you do not wish to be made public, please submit the comment as a written/paper submission in the manner detailed below.
(2) Written/Paper Submissions: Send all written/paper submissions to: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Mail Stop OPIA, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22314. Submission packaging should clearly indicate that materials are responsive to Docket No. PTO-C-2025-0016, Office of Policy and International Affairs, Comment Request; Call for Feedback on OECD's Working Party on Countering Illicit Trade (WP-CIT) Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Countering Illicit Trade in Counterfeit Goods on Online Marketplaces.
Submissions of Confidential Business Information: Any submissions containing confidential business information must be delivered in a sealed envelope marked “confidential treatment requested” to the address listed above. Submitters should provide an index listing the document(s) or information they would like the USPTO to withhold. The index should include information such as numbers used to identify the relevant document(s) or information, document title(s) and description(s), and relevant page numbers and/or section numbers within a document. Submitters should provide a statement explaining their grounds for objecting to the disclosure of the information to the public. The USPTO also requests that submitters of confidential business information include a non-confidential version (either redacted or summarized) of those confidential submissions that will be available for public viewing and posted on www.regulations.gov. In the event that the submitter cannot provide a non-confidential version of its submission, the USPTO requests that the submitter post a notice in the docket stating that it has provided the USPTO with confidential business information. Should a submitter fail to docket a non-confidential version of its submission or post a notice that confidential business information has been provided, the USPTO will note the receipt of the submission on the docket with the submitter's organization or name (to the degree permitted by law) and the date of submission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ameen Imam, USPTO, Office of Policy and International Affairs, at ameen.imam@uspto.gov. Please direct media inquiries to the Office of the Chief Communications Officer, USPTO, at 571-272-8400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On May 19, 2025, the USPTO sought input from all interested parties, but in particular, from intellectual property rights holders, online marketplaces and platforms, consumers, sellers and other private sector stakeholders, regarding their insights, evaluation of the best practices and any remaining gaps in the Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Countering Illicit Trade in Counterfeit Goods on Online Marketplaces. See Request for Comments on OECD's Working Party on Countering Illicit Trade (WP-CIT) Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Countering Illicit Trade in Counterfeit Goods on Online Marketplaces, 90 FR 21291. The notice requested public comments on or before June 27, 2025.
In response to requests from stakeholders asking for additional time to submit comments, the USPTO is reopening the written comment period to ensure that all interested parties have a sufficient opportunity to submit comments on this matter. All other information provided in the May 19, 2025 notice remains unchanged. Previously submitted comments do not need to be resubmitted.
Coke Morgan Stewart,

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
[25-0005263-AFRL/RY]
Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License

AGENCY:
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

ACTION:
Notice of intent to grant an exclusive patent license.

SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license agreement to The University of Cincinnati, a State of Ohio institute of higher education, having a place of business at 2900 Reading Road, Suite 460, Cincinnati, OH 45206-0829.

DATES:
Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of publication of this Notice.

ADDRESSES:
Submit written objections to Richard Mescher, Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Room 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email: afmclo.jaz.tech@us.af.mil. Include Docket No. 25-0005263-AFRL/RY in the subject line of the message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Mescher, Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Telephone (937) 713-0220; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email: afmclo.jaz.tech@us.af.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Department of the Air Force intends to grant the exclusive patent license agreement for the invention described in: U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/539,778, filed December 14, 2023, and entitled “Systems and Methods for Fault Detection and Mitigation Using Adaptive and Real-Time Degeneracy”.

Abstract of Patent Application
Systems and methods disclosed herein provide training an artificial neural network (ANN) on buffered input and output samples of an original component within a system such that the ANN is configured to produce a degenerate component, the degenerate component configured to generate the same outputs as the original component; comparing the outputs from the original component to outputs of the degenerative component during actual component operation; and in the event of a failure of the original comment, replacing the original component with the degenerate component.
The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.
Tommy W. Lee,

Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD-2025-OS-0078]
Proposed Collection; Comment Request

AGENCY:
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD (P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION:
60-Day information collection notice.

SUMMARY:
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

DATES:
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Regulatory Directorate, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24 Suite 05F16, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to ODASD(MC&FP), Mr. Trevor Dean, 1500 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, (703) 571-2359.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Statement of Disposition of Civilian Remains, DD Form 3004, 0704-AABF.
Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and document the selection (as applicable) of the Person Authorized to Effect Disposition (PAED), who is authorized to direct disposition of human remains of decedents. As stated in 10 United States Code section 1481, ‘Recovery, Care, and Disposition of Remains: Decedents Covered,’ the DoD may provide for the recovery, care, and disposition of the remains for active-duty Regulars, Reserve Component members, applicants, trainees, military prisoners, and others. The DoD is further authorized, per section 1482 and section 1482a to provide reimbursement, cover expenses, or otherwise provide mortuary services for decedents, including civilian employees serving with the armed forces. In order to provide reimbursement or these services, the DoD is charged with electing and documenting the elections of PAED of the remains, to whom the payment/reimbursement is made.
Affected Public: Individuals and households.
Annual Burden Hours: 60.
Number of Respondents: 60.
Responses per Respondent: 1.
Annual Responses: 60.
Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.
Frequency: As required.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Stephanie J. Bost,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD-2025-OS-0045]
Proposed Collection; Comment Request

AGENCY:
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (OUSD(I&S)), Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION:
60-Day information collection notice.

SUMMARY:
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

DATES:
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Regulatory Directorate, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24 Suite 05F16, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), 601 10th Street, Fort Meade, MD 20755, ATTN: Quality Management Oversight, or call 301-833-1331.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Investigative Interview Survey; OMB Control Number 0705-0004.
Needs and Uses: The information collected on the Investigative Interview Survey (IIS) form is used to evaluate the investigative procedure exhibited by the investigator, the investigator's professionalism, and the information discussed and reported by Federal or Federal contract investigator. Completion of the IIS is voluntary. No personally identifiable information (PII) is collected in the IIS, however, there may be some instances when a respondent reports PII despite that survey instructions reflect not to provide PII. The IIS is mailed by DCSA, to a random sampling of record and personal sources who were contacted during the background investigation process by investigators performing fieldwork. The IIS is used as a quality control instrument designed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the investigative product. In addition to the preformatted response options, DCSA invites the recipients to respond with any other relevant comments or suggestions. Results from the IIS are disseminated internally within the agency.
Affected Public: Individuals or households.
Annual Burden Hours: 3,530.
Number of Respondents: 35,300.
Responses per Respondent: 1.
Annual Responses: 35,300.
Average Burden per Response: 6 minutes.
Frequency: On occasion.
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Stephanie J. Bost,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Engineer Corps
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Withdrawal of the Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Columbia River System Operations

AGENCY:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD; Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION:
Notice of intent; withdrawal.

SUMMARY:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation (Co-Lead Agencies) are withdrawing the “Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Columbia River System Operations,” published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2024.

DATES:
The notice of intent to prepare a SEIS published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2024, is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division Attn: CRSO SEIS, P.O. Box 2870, Portland, OR 97208-2870; or by email to columbiariver@usace.army.mil.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tim Fleeger, Biological Scientist, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 (800) 290-5033 or email columbiariver@usace.army.mil. Additional information can be found at the project website: https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/columbiariver/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In accordance with the Presidential Memorandum titled Stopping Radical Environmentalism to Generate Power for the Columbia Basin dated June 12, 2025, the Co-Lead Agencies are withdrawing the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Columbia River System Operations published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2024 (89 FR 102869). The Co-Lead Agencies will follow appropriate next steps as directed in the Presidential Memorandum. The Co-Lead Agencies continue to operate and maintain the 14 projects that make up the Columbia River System consistent with the selected alternative from the 2020 Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision, the current Biological Opinions, and relevant operating documents. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to operate the Lower Snake River dams as authorized by Congress.
William C. Hannan,

Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Division Commander.
Roland K. Springer,

Acting Regional Director, Columbia-Pacific Northwest Region, Bureau of Reclamation.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0052]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Impact Aid Program—Application for Section 7002 Assistance

AGENCY:
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).

DATES:
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2025-SCC-0052. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, the Department will temporarily accept comments at ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please include the docket ID number and the title of the information collection request when requesting documents or submitting comments. Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to Faatimah Muhammad, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 4B112, Washington, DC 20202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Faatimah Muhammad, (202) 453-7511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. 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.
Title of Collection: Impact Aid Program—Application for Section 7002 Assistance.
OMB Control Number: 1810-0036.
Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved ICR.
Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 215.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 323.
Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education (ED) requests an extension for the section 7002 Application for Assistance under Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended. This application is for the Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property for local educational agencies (LEAs) that have lost local tax revenues due to federal activities request financial assistance by completing an annual application.
Ross Santy,

Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0053]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Impact Aid Program—Application for Section 7003 Assistance

AGENCY:
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).

DATES:
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2025-SCC-0053. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, the Department will temporarily accept comments at ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please include the docket ID number and the title of the information collection request when requesting documents or submitting comments. Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to Faatimah Muhammad, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 4B112, Washington, DC 20202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Faatimah Muhammad, (202) 453-7511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. 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.
Title of Collection: Impact Aid Program—Application for Section 7003 Assistance.
OMB Control Number: 1810-0687.
Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved ICR.
Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 300,999.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 86,078.
Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education is requesting approval for an extension without change for the Application for Assistance under Section 7003 of Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This application is for a grant program otherwise known as Impact Aid Basic Support Payments. Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) whose enrollments and revenues are adversely impacted by Federal activities use this form to request financial assistance. Regulations for the Impact Aid Program are found at 34 CFR 222.
The statute and regulations for this program require a variety of data from applicants annually to determine eligibility for the grants and the amount of grant payment under the statutory formula. The least burdensome method of collecting this required information is for each applicant to submit these data through a web-based electronic application hosted on the Impact Aid Grant System (IAGS) website.
Ross Santy,

Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0015]
Income Driven Repayment Plan Request for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans and Federal Family Education Loan Programs; Correction

AGENCY:
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

ACTION:
Correction notice.
On June 30, 2025, the 30-day comment period published in the Federal Register (FRN Vol. 90, No. 123, pages 27857-8) for the proposed revised information collection, Income Driven Repayment Plan Request for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans and Federal Family Education Loan Programs, with an end date of July 30, 2025. An error was made to the Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0015 posting. The 30 Day FRN references the emergency approval and 60 Day comment period. The emergency was already approved on March 24, 2025, and the 60 Day comment period ended on June 9, 2025.
The Office of the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Brian Fu,

Program and Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[GDO Docket No. EA-522]
Application for Authorization To Export Electric Energy; Castleton Commodities Energy Trading LLC

AGENCY:
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.

ACTION:
Notice of application.

SUMMARY:
Castleton Commodities Energy Trading LLC (the Applicant or CCET) has applied for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.

DATES:
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed by electronic mail to Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janessa Zucchetto, (240) 474-8226, Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300 et seq. ). Sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)) transferred this regulatory authority, previously exercised by the now-defunct Federal Power Commission, to DOE.
Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) under Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.
On March 13, 2025, CCET filed an application (Application or App.) for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a term of five years. App. at 1.
According to the Application, CCET is a power marketer with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. Id. at 1, 3. The Applicant states that it is a Delaware limited liability company and that it is a “wholly owned direct subsidiary of Castleton LP Holdings LLC.” Id. at 1. CCET represents that it “is authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission . . . to make sales of electric energy, capacity, and certain ancillary services at wholesale in interstate commerce at market-based rates.” Id. at 2.
The Applicant states that it does not own or control any electric power generation or transmission facilities, nor has a franchised electric power service area. App. at 3. CCET represents that it will purchase surplus power from wholesale generators, electric utilities, and Federal power marketing agencies. Id. at 4-5. The Applicant states that its “proposed exports will not impair or tend to impede the sufficiency of the electric power supply within the United States or the regional coordination of electric utility planning or operations.” Id. at 5. CCET further asserts that it “does not have the ability to cause total exports on Presidential Permit facilities to exceed the authorized instantaneous transmission rate.” Id. The Applicant states that it “will make all necessary commercial arrangements and will obtain any and all other regulatory approvals required in order to carry out any power exports.” Id.
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties. See App. at Attachment 1.
Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the Application at Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214).
Comments and other filings concerning CCET's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-522. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Compliance Department, Castleton Commodities International LLC, 2200 Atlantic Street, Suite 800, Stamford, CT 06902, Compliance@CCI.com; Daniel Frank, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, 700 Sixth Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001, DanielFrank @eversheds-sutherland.com; Allison Salvia, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, 700 Sixth Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001, AllisonSalvia@eversheds-sutherland.com.
A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.
Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at https://www.energy.gov/gdo/pending-applications-0 or by emailing Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 30, 2025, by Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy, U.S Department of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2025.
Treena V. Garrett,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[GDO Docket No. EA-182-F]
Application for Renewal of Authorization To Export Electric Energy; H.Q. Energy Services (US) Inc.

AGENCY:
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.

ACTION:
Notice of application.

SUMMARY:
H.Q. Energy Services (US) Inc. (the Applicant or HQUS) has applied for renewal of its authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.

DATES:
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed by electronic mail to Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janessa Zucchetto, (240) 474-8226, Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300 et seq. ). Sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)) transferred this regulatory authority, previously exercised by the now-defunct Federal Power Commission, to DOE.
Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) under Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.
On March 12, 2025, HQUS filed an application (Application or App) for renewal of export authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a term of five years. App. at 1.
According to the Application, HQUS is a power marketer with its principal place of business in Hartford, CT. Id. at 1. The Applicant states that it is “a wholly-owned subsidiary of H.Q. Energy Holdings, Inc. and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Hydro-Quebec[.]” Id. at 2. HQUS represents that it is “an energy marketer engaged [sic] the business of buying and selling electricity for its own account and brokering electricity for others, transmission services and related activities” and that it “has been authorized by [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] to sell electricity in interstate commerce at market-based rates.” Id. at 3.
The Applicant states that it “neither owns generation resources, nor has a franchised service area or native load obligation.” App. at 5. HQUS represents that “[t]he electric energy that [it] will export to Canada from these markets, on either a firm or interruptible basis, will not impair the sufficiency of the electric energy supply within the United States.” Id. at 7. The Applicant also states that it “does not have the ability to cause total exports on cross-border facilities to exceed the authorized instantaneous transmission rate[.]” Id. at 6. HQUS represents that it will schedule its export transactions “in compliance with applicable [North American Electric Reliability Corporation] reliability criteria, standards and guidelines in effect at the time of a proposed export along with those of relevant regional reliability organizations.” Id. at 9.
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties. See App. at Exhibit C.
Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the Application at Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214).
Comments and other filings concerning HQUS' Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-182-F. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Marie-Eve Cayer, Senior Legal Counsel, Hydro Quebec, 800 De Maisonneuve East Blvd., 11th Floor, Montreal, Quebec H2L 4M8, Canada, cayer.maireeve@hydroquebec.com, and Jerry Pfeffer, Energy Industries Advisor, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, 1440 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005, jerry.pfeffer@skadden.com.
A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.
Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at https://www.energy.gov/gdo/pending-applications-0 or by emailing Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 30, 2025, by Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2025.
Treena V. Garrett,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[GDO Docket No. EA-523]
Application for Authorization To Export Electric Energy; Danske Commodities US LLC

AGENCY:
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.

ACTION:
Notice of application.

SUMMARY:
Danske Commodities US LLC (the Applicant or Danske Commodities) has applied for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.

DATES:
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed by electronic mail to Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janessa Zucchetto, (240) 474-8226, Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300 et seq. ). Sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)) transferred this regulatory authority, previously exercised by the now-defunct Federal Power Commission, to DOE.
Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) under Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.
On March 31, 2025, Danske Commodities filed an application (Application or App.) for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a term of ten years. App. at 1.
According to the Application, Danske Commodities is a power marketer with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. Id. at 2. The Applicant states that it is “owned 100% by Equinor US Holdings Inc. . .., a Delaware corporation.” Id. Danske Commodities represents that it is “authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. . . to engage in the purchase and sale of physical and/ or virtual energy in the Day-ahead and Real-time Markets of the various Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations.” Id.
The Applicant states that it “has no electric power supply system on which the proposed exports could have a reliability, fuel use system, or stability impact” and has “no obligation to serve native load usually associated with a franchised service area.” App. at 3-4. Danske Commodities represents that it will purchase “power to be exported from a variety of sources, including but not limited to, power marketers, independent power producers, or U.S. electric utilities and federal power marketing entities[.]” Id. at 4. The Applicant thus asserts that its proposed exports “will not impair the sufficiency of the electric power supply within the U.S.” Id.
Danske Commodities further asserts that its proposed exports will not impair or tend to impede the sufficiency of electric supplies in the U.S. or the regional coordination of electric utility planning or operations. App. at 5. The Applicant states that it “will make all necessary commercial arrangements and will obtain any and all other regulatory approvals required in order to schedule and deliver power exports.” Id. at 4.
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties. See App. at Exhibit C.
Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the Application at Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214).
Comments and other filings concerning Danske Commodities' Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-523. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Petra Páll, Danske Commodities US LLC, Vaerkmestergade 3, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark, ppl@danskecommodities.com; Nicholas H. Salalayko, Pierce Atwood LLP, 254 Commercial Street, Portland, ME 04101, nsalalayko@pierceatwood.com.
A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.
Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at https://www.energy.gov/gdo/pending-applications-0 or by emailing Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 30, 2025, by Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy, U.S Department of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2025.
Treena V. Garrett,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2788-022]
Goodyear Lake Hydro, L.L.C; Notice of Effectiveness of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment of License
On October 2, 2023, Goodyear Lake Hydro, L.L.C (licensee) filed an application for a non-capacity amendment for the Colliersville Hydroelectric Project No. 2788. ^1 On June 11, 2025, the licensee filed a notice of withdrawal of the amendment application. The project is located on the Susquehanna River, in the Town of Milford, Otsego County, New York and does not occupy federal lands.
^1 Goodyear Lake Hydro, L.L.C, 168 FERC ¶ 62,034 (2019).
No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, ^2 the withdrawal of the application became effective on June 26, 2025, and this proceeding is hereby terminated.
^2 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2024).
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Carlos D. Clay,

Deputy Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Combined Notice of Filings
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings
Docket Numbers: RP25-987-000.
Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20250630 Negotiated Rate to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5140.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
Docket Numbers: RP25-988-000.
Applicants: Midship Pipeline Company, LLC.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Midship Pipeline Non-Conforming Contract Agreements Filing to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5261.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
Docket Numbers: RP25-989-000.
Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20250701 Section 4 Rate Case Part 1 of 2 to be effective 8/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5089.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
Docket Numbers: RP25-990-000.
Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Summary of Negotiated Rate Capacity Release Agreements 7-1-2025 to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5104.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
Docket Numbers: RP25-991-000.
Applicants: MIGC LLC.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2025 Annual Fuel Filing to be effective 8/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5116.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
Docket Numbers: RP25-992-000.
Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Various Releases eff 7-1-2025 to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5121.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
Docket Numbers: RP25-993-000.
Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.
Description: Tariff Amendment: Cancel Tariff (effective 8-1-25) to be effective 8/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5169.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
Docket Numbers: RP25-994-000.
Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Remove Expired Agreements eff 7-1-2025 to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5186.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
Docket Numbers: RP25-995-000.
Applicants: West Texas Gas Utility, LLC.
Description: Annual Purchased Gas Cost Reconciliation Report of West Texas Gas Utility, LLC.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5204.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
Docket Numbers: RP25-996-000.
Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Con Ed 910950 Releases eff 7-1-2025 to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5209.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings
Docket Numbers: RP25-699-001.
Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
Description: Compliance filing: Settlement Compliance—Tariff Implementation RP24-408 et. al. to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5105.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/25.
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 ( https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp ) by querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
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 OPP@ferc.gov.
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Carlos D. Clay,

Deputy Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Combined Notice of Filings #2
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Docket Numbers: EC25-108-000.
Applicants: Santa Rosa Energy Center, LLC,AL Santa Rosa, LLC.
Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Santa Rosa Energy Center, LLC, et al.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5314.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/25.
Take notice that the Commission received the following complaints and compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Docket Numbers: EL25-96-000; ER25-2706-000.
Applicants:
Pacificorp, Bonneville Power Administration v. PacifiCorp .
Description: Formal Challenge and Complaint of Bonneville Power Administration v. PacifiCorp .
Filed Date: 6/27/25.
Accession Number: 20250627-5297.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/25.
Docket Numbers: EL25-97-000.
Applicants: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Description: Petition for Declaratory Order of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5295.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/25.
Docket Numbers: EL25-98-000; ER24-2004-000.
Applicants:
PacifiCorp, Powerex Corp v. PacifiCorp .
Description: Formal Challenge to the Formula Transmission Rate 2024 Annual Update and Complaint of Powerex Corp v. PacifiCorp .
Filed Date: 6/27/25.
Accession Number: 20250627-5310.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/25.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Docket Numbers: ER10-2374-023; ER17-2059-014.
Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
Description: Updated Triennial Market Power Analysis for Northwest Region of Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5320.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER10-2757-011; ER10-1342-009; ER10-3310-018; ER11-3051-007; ER18-53-005.
Applicants: CXA La Paloma, LLC, Macho Springs Power I, LLC, New Harquahala Generating Company, LLC, CP Energy Marketing (US) Inc., Arlington Valley, LLC.
Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region of Arlington Valley, LLC, et al.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5327.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER17-1329-002.
Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation.
Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Central Region of J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation.
Filed Date: 7/1/24.
Accession Number: 20240701-5443.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24.
Docket Numbers: ER18-1775-007; ER14-2666-008; ER15-1218-017; ER16-38-015; ER16-39-014; ER16-2501-011; ER16-2502-011; ER17-157-008; ER17-2341-012; ER17-2453-011; ER18-713-010; ER20-2888-009; ER23-2294-003; ER24-311-002; ER24-1220-001; ER24-2653-001; ER25-156-002.
Applicants: Peregrine Energy Storage, LLC, 69SV 8me LLC, 68SF 8me LLC, Condor Energy Storage, LLC, Vikings Energy Farm LLC, Townsite Solar, LLC,CA Flats Solar 150, LLC, Imperial Valley Solar 3, LLC, CA Flats Solar 130, LLC, Moapa Southern Paiute Solar, LLC, Tropico, LLC, Nicolis, LLC, Kingbird Solar B, LLC, Kingbird Solar A, LLC, Solar Star California XIII, LLC, Avalon Solar Partners, LLC, 64KT 8me LLC.
Description: Updated Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region of 64KT 8me LLC, et al.
Filed Date: 6/27/25.
Accession Number: 20250627-5311.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/25.
Docket Numbers: ER19-289-011; ER13-1248-004; ER18-2264-011; ER19-2462-009.
Applicants: Macquarie Energy LLC, Macquarie Energy Trading LLC, Patua Project LLC, Cleco Cajun LLC.
Description: Updated Triennial Market Power Analysis for Northwest Region of Cleco Cajun LLC, et al.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5324.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER19-289-012; ER11-4111-004; ER18-2264-012; ER19-2462-010.
Applicants: Macquarie Energy LLC, Macquarie Energy Trading LLC, Hudson Ranch Power I LLC, Cleco Cajun LLC.
Description: Updated Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region of Cleco Cajun LLC, et al.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5331.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER20-681-014.
Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Northwest Region of Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5325.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER22-2190-005; ER22-2191-005; ER25-154-002.
Applicants: Sandrini BESS Storage LLC, EDPR CA Solar Park II LLC, EDPR CA Solar Park LLC.
Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region and Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of EDPR CA Solar Park LLC, et al.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5328.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2726-000.
Applicants: CED White River Solar, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5010.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2727-000.
Applicants: Mesquite Solar 2, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5011.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2728-000.
Applicants: Mesquite Solar 1, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5012.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2729-000.
Applicants: Iron Horse Battery Storage, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5013.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2730-000.
Applicants: CED White River Solar 2, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5014.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2731-000.
Applicants: Great Valley Solar 3, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5015.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2732-000.
Applicants: Westside Canal 2A, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5016.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2733-000.
Applicants: Copper Mountain Solar 1, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5017.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2734-000.
Applicants: RWE Trading Americas Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5018.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2735-000.
Applicants: Copper Mountain Solar 3, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5019.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2736-000.
Applicants: CED Wistaria Solar, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5020.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2737-000.
Applicants: RWE Supply & Trading US, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5021.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2738-000.
Applicants: RWE Supply & Trading Americas, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5022.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2739-000.
Applicants: Great Valley Solar 1, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5023.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2740-000.
Applicants: Great Valley Solar 2, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5024.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2741-000.
Applicants: Fifth Standard Solar PV, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 4/21/2023.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5025.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2742-000.
Applicants: RWE Clean Energy Solutions, Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5026.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2743-000.
Applicants: RWE Clean Energy Wholesale Services, Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5027.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2744-000.
Applicants: Copper Mountain Solar 2, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5028.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2745-000.
Applicants: Alpaugh North, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5029.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2746-000.
Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3434R3 East Texas Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 6/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5147.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2747-000.
Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1067R14 East Texas Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 6/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5161.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2748-000.
Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., American Transmission Company LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: American Transmission Company LLC submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2025-07-01_SA 4528 ATC-Columbia Project E&P (J2304) to be effective 8/31/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5184.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2749-000.
Applicants: Greeley Wind Nebraska, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization—Greeley Wind Nebraska, LLC to be effective 8/31/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5218.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2750-000.
Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Mississippi Power Company.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Stellar (Dry Creek Solar) LGIA Filing to be effective 6/16/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5228.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/25.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system ( https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp ) by querying the docket number.
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: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
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 OPP@ferc.gov.
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Carlos D. Clay,

Deputy Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. IC25-16-000]
Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-604) Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:
Notice of information collection and request for comments.

SUMMARY:
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved requirements and burden of information collection, FERC-604 (Cash Management Agreements).

DATES:
Comments on the collections of information are due September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Please submit comments via email to DataClearance@FERC.gov. You must specify the Docket No. (IC25-16-000) and the FERC Information Collection number (FERC-604) in your email. If you are unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
• Mail via U.S. Postal Service only, addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
• Hand (including courier) delivery to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Docket: To view comments and issuances in this docket, please visit https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search. Once there, you can also sign-up for automatic notification of activity in this docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kayla Williams, (202) 502-6468. DataClearance@FERC.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: FERC-604 (Cash Management Agreements).
OMB Control No.: 1902-0267.
Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-604 with no changes to the current reporting requirements.
Abstract: This collection of information is authorized by the following statutory provisions:
• Sections 8 and 10 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717g and 717i);
• Sections 301 and 304 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 835 and 825c); and
• Sections 20(1) and 20(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 App. U.S.C. 20(1) and 20(5)).
Cash management or “money pool” programs typically concentrate affiliates' cash assets in joint accounts for the purpose of providing financial flexibility and lowering the cost of borrowing. In a 2002 investigation, FERC staff found that balances in cash management programs affecting FERC-regulated entities totaled approximately $16 billion. Additionally, other investigations revealed large transfers of funds (amounting to more than $1 billion) between regulated pipeline affiliates and non-regulated parents whose financial conditions were precarious. The Commission found that these and other fund transfers and the enormous (mostly unregulated) pools of money in cash management programs could detrimentally affect regulated rates.
To protect customers and promote transparency, the Commission issued Order 634-A (2003) requiring entities to formalize in writing and file with the Commission their cash management agreements. At that time, the Commission obtained OMB clearance for this new reporting requirement under the FERC-555 information collection (OMB Control No. 1902-0098). Now, the Commission includes these reporting requirements for cash management agreements under the FERC-604 information collection (OMB Control No. 1902-0267). The Commission implemented these reporting requirements in 18 CFR 141.500, 260.400, and 357.5.
Type of Respondents: Public utilities, natural gas companies, and oil pipeline companies.
Estimate of Annual Burden. ^1 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:
^1 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. See 5 CFR 1320 for additional information on the definition of information collection burden.
FERC-604, Cash Management Agreements
Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Total number of responses | Average burden hours & average cost ^2 per response ($) | Total annual burden hours & total annual cost ($) | Cost per respondent ($)
(1) | (2) | (1) * (2) = (3) | (4) | (3) * (4) = (5) | (5) ÷ (1) = (6)
45 | 1 | 45 | 1.5 hours; $155 | 67.5 hours; $6,953 | $155
Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
^2 The Commission staff estimates that the industry's hourly cost for wages plus benefits is similar to the Commission's $103 FY 2025 average hourly cost for wages and benefits ($214,093 annual costs).
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Carlos D. Clay,

Deputy Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. IC25-9-000]
Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q); Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:
Notice of information collections and request for comments.

SUMMARY:
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collections, FERC Form Nos. 6 (Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies) and 6-Q (Quarterly Report of Oil Pipeline Companies). The Commission published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register on March 26, 2025 and received no comments.

DATES:
Comments on collections of information are due August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Send written comments on FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q to OMB through https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRA/icrPublicCommentRequest?ref_nbr=202505-1902-003. You can also visit https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and use the drop-down under “Currently under Review” to select the “Federal Energy Regulatory Commission” where you can see the open opportunities to provide comments. Comments should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Please also submit a copy of your comments to the Commission via email to DataClearance@FERC.gov. You must specify the Docket No. IC25-9-000 and the FERC Information Collection number (FERC-6 and FERC-6Q) in your email. If you are unable to submit via email, comments may be sent by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
• Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
• All other delivery methods: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Docket: To view comments and issuances in this docket, please visit https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search. Once there, you can also sign-up for automatic notification of activity in this docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kayla Williams, (202) 502-6468. DataClearance@FERC.gov .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Type of Request: Three-year extensions of FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q, information collections with no changes to the current reporting requirements.
Titles: FERC Form Nos. 6 (Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies) and 6-Q (Quarterly Report of Oil Pipeline Companies).
OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0022 (FERC Form No. 6), 1902-0206 (FERC Form No. 6-Q).
Type of Respondent: Oil pipelines.
The Commission published a 60-day notice on March 26, 2025 in the Federal Register (90 FR 13742) and received no comments.
Abstract: Under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), ^1 the Commission is authorized to collect and record data to the extent the Commission may consider such data necessary or useful for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the ICA. The Commission must ensure just and reasonable rates for transportation of crude oil and petroleum products by pipelines in interstate commerce.
^1 49 U.S.C. Part 1, Section 20, 54 Stat. 916.

FERC Form No. 6, Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies
In 1977, the Department of Energy Organization Act transferred to the Commission from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the responsibility to regulate oil pipeline companies. In accordance with the transfer of authority, the Commission was delegated the responsibility to require oil pipelines to file annual reports of information necessary for the Commission to exercise its statutory responsibilities. ^2 The transfer included the ICC Form P, the predecessor to FERC Form No. 6. ^3
^2 Section 402(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Act), 42 U.S.C. 7172 provides that “[t]here are hereby transferred to, and vested in, the Commission all functions and authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission or any officer or component of such Commission where the regulatory function establishes rates or charges for the transportation of oil by pipeline or established the valuation of any such pipeline.”
^3 The ICC developed the Form P to collect information on an annual basis to enable it to carry out its regulation of oil pipeline companies under the Interstate Commerce Act. A comprehensive review of the reporting requirements for oil pipeline companies was performed on September 21, 1982, when the Commission issued Order No. 260 revising the former ICC Form P, “Annual Report of Carriers by Pipeline” and redesignating it as FERC Form No. 6, “Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies.
To reduce burden on industry, FERC Form No. 6 has three tiers of reporting requirements:
1. Each oil pipeline carrier whose annual jurisdictional operating revenues has been $500,000 or more for each of the three previous calendar years must file FERC Form No. 6 (18 CFR 357.2 (a)). Oil pipeline companies subject to the provisions of section 20 of the ICA must submit FERC Form No. 6-Q. (18 CFR 357.4(b)). Newly established entities must use projected data to determine whether FERC Form No. 6 must be filed.
2. Oil pipeline carriers exempt from filing FERC Form No. 6 whose annual jurisdictional operating revenues have been more than $350,000 but less than $500,000 for each of the three previous calendar years must prepare and file page 301, “Operating Revenue Accounts (Account 600),” and page 700, “Annual Cost of Service Based Analysis Schedule,” of FERC Form No. 6. When submitting pages 301 and 700, each exempt oil pipeline carrier must include page 1 of FERC Form No. 6, the Identification and Attestation schedule (18 CFR 357.2 (a)(2)).
3. Oil pipeline carriers exempt from filing FERC Form No. 6 and page 301 and whose annual jurisdictional operating revenues were $350,000 or less for each of the three previous calendar years must prepare and file page 700, “Annual Cost of Service Based Analysis Schedule,” of FERC Form No. 6. When submitting page 700, each exempt oil pipeline carrier must include page 1 of FERC Form No. 6, the Identification and Attestation schedule (18 CFR 357.2 (a)(3)).
The Commission uses the data in FERC Form No. 6 to perform audits and reviews of the financial condition of oil pipelines; assess energy markets; conduct oil pipeline rate proceedings and economic analysis; conduct research for use in administrative litigation; and administer the requirements of the ICA. Data from FERC Form No. 6 facilitates the calculation of the actual rate of return on equity for oil pipelines. The actual rate of return on equity is particularly useful information when evaluating a pipeline's rates.
The Commission also uses data on page 301 of FERC Form No. 6 to compute annual charges which are then assessed against oil pipeline companies to recover the Commission's annual costs as mandated by Order No. 472. The annual charges are required by Section 3401 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986.
Furthermore, the majority of state regulatory commissions use FERC Form No. 6 and the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts (USofA) to satisfy their reporting requirements for those companies under their jurisdiction. In addition, the public uses the data in FERC Form No. 6 to assist in monitoring rates, the financial condition of the oil pipeline industry, and in assessing energy markets.

FERC Form No. 6-Q, Quarterly Financial Report of Oil Pipeline Companies
The Commission uses the information collected in FERC Form No. 6-Q to carry out its responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of the ICA to include the authority to prescribe rules and regulations concerning accounts, records, and memoranda, as necessary or appropriate. Financial accounting and reporting provides necessary information concerning a company's past performance and its future prospects. Without reliable financial statements prepared in accordance with the Commission's USofA and related regulations, it would be difficult for the Commission to accurately determine the costs that relate to a particular time period, service, or line of business.
The Commission uses data from FERC Form No. 6-Q to assist in: (1) implementation of its financial audits and programs; (2) continuous review of the financial condition of regulated companies; (3) assessment of energy markets; and (4) rate proceedings and economic analyses.
Financial information reported in the quarterly FERC Form No. 6-Q provides the Commission, as well as customers, investors and others, an important tool to help identify emerging trends and issues affecting jurisdictional entities within the energy industry. It also provides timely disclosures of the impacts that new accounting standards, or changes in existing standards, have on jurisdictional entities, as well as the economic effects of significant transactions, events, and circumstances. The reporting of this information by jurisdictional entities assists the Commission in its analysis of profitability, efficiency, risk, and in its overall monitoring.

FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q
Estimates of Annual Burden ^4
and Cost ^5 :
^4 “Burden” is the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
^5 Commission staff estimates that the industry's skill set and cost (for wages and benefits) for completing and filing FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q are comparable to the Commission's skill set and average cost. The FERC 2025 average salary plus benefits for one FERC full-time equivalent (FTE) is $103/hour. Note—the 60-day Federal Register Notice mistakenly indicated the FERC FTE average salary cost was $104/hour. Accordingly, these tables include a minor correction from those published in the 60-day Federal Register Notice.
FERC Form 6—Annual Burden Estimate
B. Number of respondents | C. Annual number of responses per respondent | D. Total number of responses (column B × column C) | E. Average burden hours & cost per response | F. Total annual burden hours & cost (column D × column E) | G. Cost per respondent (column F ÷ column B)
269 | 1 | 269 | 161 hrs., $16,583 | 43,309 hrs., $4,460,827 | $16,583
FERC Form 6-Q—Annual Burden Estimate
B. Number of respondents | C. Annual number of responses per respondent | D. Total number of responses (column B × column C) | E. Average burden hours & cost per response | F. Total annual burden hours & cost (column D × column E) | G. Cost per respondent (column F ÷ column B)
247 | 3 | 741 | 150 hrs., $15,450 | 111,150 hrs. , $11,448,450 | $46,350

30-Day Comments
Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Carlos D. Clay,

Deputy Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RM98-1-000]
Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications: Public Notice
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e) (1) (v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. Each filing may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.
Docket Nos. | File date | Presenter or requester
Prohibited:
1. ER25-2454-000 | 6-18-2025 | FERC Staff. ^1
2. CP25-60-000 | 6-24-2025 | FERC Staff. ^2
Exempt:
1. P-2360-000 | 6-18-2025 | FERC Staff. ^3
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Carlos D. Clay,

Deputy Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Combined Notice of Filings #1
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
^1 Emailed comments dated 6/17/25 from Robert E. Rutkowski.
^2 Emailed comments dated 6/19/25 from Robert E. Rutkowski.
^3 Emailed comments dated 6/17/25 from Lucy Harrington of the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office.
Docket Numbers: EC25-107-000.
Applicants: Angiola East, LLC.
Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Angiola East, LLC.
Filed Date: 6/27/25.
Accession Number: 20250627-5308.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/25.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Docket Numbers: EG25-366-000.
Applicants: Kelso 2 Solar LLC.
Description: Kelso 2 Solar LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
Filed Date: 6/27/25.
Accession Number: 20250627-5305.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/25.
Docket Numbers: EG25-367-000.
Applicants: Mowata Solar, LLC.
Description: Mowata Solar, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5288.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/25.
Docket Numbers: EG25-368-000.
Applicants: Juliet Energy Project, LLC.
Description: Juliet Energy Project, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5289.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/25.
Docket Numbers: EG25-369-000.
Applicants: Jones City Energy Storage, LLC.
Description: Jones City Energy Storage, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5290.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/25.
Docket Numbers: EG25-370-000.
Applicants: Jones City Solar II, LLC.
Description: Jones City Solar II, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5291.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/25.
Docket Numbers: EG25-371-000.
Applicants: Desert Pine Storage, LLC.
Description: Desert Pine Storage, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5292.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/25.
Docket Numbers: EG25-372-000.
Applicants: Desert Pine Solar, LLC.
Description: Desert Pine Solar, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5293.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/25.
Docket Numbers: EG25-373-000.
Applicants: Fiddle Leaf Solar, LLC.
Description: Fiddle Leaf Solar, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5294.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/25.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Docket Numbers: ER10-2531-014; ER20-1608-004; ER22-1085-003.
Applicants: Panorama Wind, LLC, Mountain Breeze Wind, LLC, Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC.
Description: Updated Triennial Market Power Analysis for Northwest Region of Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC, et al.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5310.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER10-2794-038.
Applicants: EDF Trading North America, LLC.
Description: Updated Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region of EDF Trading North America, LLC.
Filed Date: 6/27/25.
Accession Number: 20250627-5307.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/25.
Docket Numbers: ER11-4475-017.
Applicants: Rockland Wind Farm LLC.
Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Northwest Region of Rockland Wind Farm LLC.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5309.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER17-556-009; ER10-1362-010; ER12-2639-014; ER17-104-011; ER17-105-011; ER21-2330-004; ER21-2331-004; ER21-2333-004; ER21-2336-004; ER23-2426-002.
Applicants: Pattern Energy Management Services LLC, Tecolote Wind LLC, Red Cloud Wind LLC, Duran Mesa LLC, Clines Corners Wind Farm LLC, Broadview Energy JN, LLC, Broadview Energy KW, LLC, Ocotillo Express LLC, Hatchet Ridge Wind, LLC, Grady Wind Energy Center, LLC.
Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region of Grady Wind Energy Center, LLC, et al.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5306.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER20-464-004; ER11-2335-022.
Applicants: Dynegy Services Plum Point, LLC, Greenleaf Energy Unit 2 LLC.
Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region of Greenleaf Energy Unit 2 L.L.C., et al.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5307.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER20-608-004.
Applicants: Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc.
Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region of Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5308.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER21-445-003.
Applicants: Hill Top Energy Center LLC.
Description: Supplement to 06/27/2023, Triennial Market Power Analysis for Northeast Region of Hill Top Energy Center LLC.
Filed Date: 6/27/25.
Accession Number: 20250627-5289.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/25.
Docket Numbers: ER22-2263-001.
Applicants: Blythe Energy Inc.
Description: Market: Blythe Energy Triennial Filing to be effective N/A.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5005.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2123-001.
Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Deficiency Notice on Black Start Service Rate Revisions to be effective 9/1/2025.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5260.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2211-000; ER25-2212-000.
Applicants: Prairie Solar 1, LLC, American Beech Solar LLC.
Description: Supplement to 05/13/2025, American Beech Solar LLC, et al., tariff filing.
Filed Date: 6/25/25.
Accession Number: 20250625-5180.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2713-000.
Applicants: RWE Clean Energy QSE, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5246.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2714-000.
Applicants: SEP II, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5248.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2715-000.
Applicants: RWE Clean Energy O&M, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5256.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2716-000.
Applicants: EWO Marketing, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: EWOM-SRMPA SRPSA Capacity Rate Adjustment to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 6/30/25.
Accession Number: 20250630-5258.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2717-000.
Applicants: Panoche Valley Solar, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5000.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2718-000.
Applicants: Mesquite Solar 5, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5001.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2719-000.
Applicants: CED Ducor Solar 1, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5002.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2720-000.
Applicants: Alpaugh 50, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5003.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2721-000.
Applicants: CED Ducor Solar 2, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5004.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2722-000.
Applicants: Northern Orchard Solar PV, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5006.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2723-000.
Applicants: CED Ducor Solar 3, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5007.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2724-000.
Applicants: Mesquite Solar 4, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/1/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5008.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
Docket Numbers: ER25-2725-000.
Applicants: Mesquite Solar 3, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Triennial MBR Update to be effective 7/2/2025.
Filed Date: 7/1/25.
Accession Number: 20250701-5009.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/25.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system ( https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp ) by querying the docket number.
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: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
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 OPP@ferc.gov.
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Carlos D. Clay,

Deputy Secretary.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OGC-2025-0269; FRL-12814-01-OGC]
Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

SUMMARY:
In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the Act), notice is given of a proposed consent decree in Little Manila Rising, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 4:24-cv-07768-HSG. On November 7, 2024, Plaintiffs Little Manila Rising, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air and Sierra Club filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or the “Agency”) failed to perform certain non-discretionary duties in accordance with the Act to take final action on a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California. EPA is providing notice of this proposed consent decree, which would resolve all claims in the case by establishing a deadline for EPA to take final action as specified in the decree.

DATES:
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2025-0269, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Additional Information about Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree” heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abi Vijayan, Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; telephone (202) 564-3178; email address Vijayan.Abi@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2025-0269) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.
The electronic version of the public docket for this action contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree
The proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to take action pursuant to CAA section 110(k) on the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's “2022 Plan for the 2015 8-hour Ozone Standard” and the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) aggregate emissions reduction commitments in a Staff Report titled “CARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2022 Plan for the 70 ppb 8-Hour Ozone Standard” (considered together, the “2022 Ozone Plan”), submitted by the State of California on February 23, 2023. The 2022 Ozone Plan addresses the nonattainment area SIP requirements for San Joaquin Valley for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards.
The proposed consent decree would require EPA to file a status report on the Agency's progress towards action on the 2022 Ozone Plan by October 15, 2025 and would require EPA to sign a notice of final rulemaking by July 17, 2026, and, within 15 business days of signature, to send the required signed notice of final rule to the Office of Federal Register for review and publication.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2025-0269, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
Gautam Srinivasan,

Associate General Counsel.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-R04-OAR-2024-0556; FRL-12424-01-R4]
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District; New Stationary Sources; Delegation of Authority

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Notice of delegation of authority.

SUMMARY:
On July 25, 2023, the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD) requested delegation of authority to implement and enforce the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) using the “adopt-by-reference” mechanism. To inform regulated facilities and the public, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that it approved the LMAPCD's request on August 20, 2024.

DATES:
On August 20, 2024, EPA sent the LMAPCD a letter approving the LMAPCD's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal NSPS.

ADDRESSES:
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2024-0556 at https://www.regulations.gov. Copies of the request for delegation of authority and EPA's approval letter are included in the docket and are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air and Radiation Division, Air Analysis and Support Branch, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, 701 West Ormsby Avenue, Suite 303, Louisville, Kentucky 40203-3137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Henian Zhang, Regulatory and Community Air Toxics Section, Air Analysis and Support Branch, Air and Radiation Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, 404-562-8123, or zhang.henian@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On July 25, 2023, EPA received a letter from the LMAPCD requesting delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal NSPS using the “adopt-by-reference” mechanism. Section 111(c)(1) of the CAA authorizes EPA to delegate the authority to implement and enforce the NSPS set out in part 60 of title 40, chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to State and local agencies that develop and submit to EPA an adequate procedure for implementing and enforcing the NSPS. After a thorough review of the request, EPA has determined that the LMAPCD's regulations provide an adequate procedure for implementing and enforcing current and future NSPS. EPA, therefore, hereby notifies the public that it has approved the LMAPCD's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce all existing promulgated NSPS subparts that are delegable, and any future new or revised subparts that are delegable, using the “adopt-by-reference” mechanism. This approval became effective on August 30, 2024. With this NSPS delegation mechanism in place, once EPA promulgates a new or revised delegable NSPS subpart, delegation of authority from EPA to the LMAPCD will become effective on the date when the delegable NSPS subpart is adopted by the LMAPCD into its local rules. No further requests from the local agency for delegation will be necessary. Likewise, no further Federal Register notices will be published.
Under CAA section 111(c)(2), EPA reserves the right to implement the Federal NSPS directly and continues to retain concurrent enforcement authority. Effective August 30, 2024, and unless otherwise specified by the NSPS rules for reporting purposes, the information required pursuant to the Federal NSPS must be submitted by sources located inside the jurisdictional boundaries of the LMAPCD to the following address: Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, 701 West Ormsby Avenue, Suite 303, Louisville, Kentucky 40203-3137. The LMAPCD is the primary point of contact with respect to delegated NSPS authorities. For those authorities not delegated, sources must continue to submit all required information to EPA. As mentioned above, this notice acknowledges EPA's approval of the LMAPCD's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce delegable NSPS using the “adopt-by-reference” mechanism.
Dated: June 25, 2025.
Kevin McOmber,

Regional Administrator, Region 4.
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
[Public Notice: 2025-6031]
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; EIB 92-34, Application for Short-Term Letter of Credit Export Credit Insurance Policy

AGENCY:
Export-Import Bank of the United States

ACTION:
Notice of information collection; request for comment

SUMMARY:
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), pursuant to the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended facilitates the finance of the export of U.S. goods and services. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, EXIM invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:
Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2025 to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES:
Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov (EIB 92-34), by email to Alyson Young at alyson.young@exim.gov, or by mail to Alyson Young, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW Washington, DC 20571.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
To request additional information please contact Alyson Young, Alyson.young@exim.gov, 202-565-3657.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The “Report of Premiums Payable for Exporters Only” form will be used by exporters to report and pay premiums on insured shipments to various foreign buyers. The Application for Short Term Letter of Credit Export Credit Insurance Policy is used to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the transaction for EXIM assistance under its insurance program. EXIM customers are able to submit this form on paper or electronically.
The application tool can be reviewed at: https://img.exim.gov/s3fs-public/pub/pending/EIB92-34_Short_Term_Bank_Letter_of_Credit_Application_2025_PENDING.pdf .
Title and Form Number: EIB 92-34 Application for Short-Term Letter of Credit Export Credit Insurance Policy.
OMB Number: 3048-0009.
Type of Review: Regular.
Need and Use: This form is used by a financial institution (or broker acting on its behalf) to obtain approval for coverage of a short-term letter of credit. The information allows the EXIM staff to make a determination of the eligibility of the applicant and transaction for EXIM assistance under its programs.
Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.
Annual Number of Respondents: 11.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.5 hr.
Annual Burden Hours: 5.5
Frequency of Reporting of Use: On occasion.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Andrew Smith,

Records Officer.
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
[Public Notice: 2025-6031]
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; EIB 03-02, Application for Medium Term Insurance, Direct Loan or Guarantee

AGENCY:
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION:
Submission for OMB review and comments request.

SUMMARY:
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:
Comments should be received on or before September 5, 2025 to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES:
Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov (EIB 03-02), by email to Donna Schneider, donna.schneider@exim.gov, or by mail to Donna Schneider, Export-Import Bank, 811 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20571. The information collection tool can be reviewed at: https://img.exim.gov/s3fs-public/pub/pending/eib03-02.pdf .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
To request additional information, please contact Donna Schneider donna.schneider@exim.gov, 202-565-3612.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Titles and Form Number: EIB 03-02, Application for Medium Term Insurance, Direct Loan or Guarantee.
OMB Number: 3048-0014.
Type of Review: Regular.
Need and Use: The purpose of this collection is to gather information necessary to make a determination of eligibility of a transaction for EXIM assistance under its medium-term guarantee and insurance program.
Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.
Annual Number of Respondents: 100.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 2 hours.
Annual Burden Hours: 200 hours.
Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Andrew Smith,

Records Officer.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[OMB 3060-0994, OMB 3060-1108; FR ID 301054]
Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority

AGENCY:
Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:
Notice and request for comments.

SUMMARY:
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

DATES:
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 5, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES:
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control No.: 3060-0994.
Title: Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Band.
Form No: Not Applicable.
Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
Number of Respondents: 126 respondents; 126 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.50-50 hours per response.
Frequency of Response: On occasion, one time and annual reporting requirements, third-party disclosure and recordkeeping requirements.
Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 4(i), 7, 302, 303(c), 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157, 302, 303(c), 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r).
Total Annual Burden: 520 hours.
Annual Cost Burden: $488,920.
Needs and Uses: This collection will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as an extension following the 60-day comment period in order to obtain the full three-year clearance from OMB.
The purposes of this collection are to obtain information necessary for licensing operators of Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) networks to provide ancillary services in the U.S. via terrestrial base stations (Ancillary Terrestrial Components, or ATCs); obtain the legal and technical information required to facilitate the integration of ATCs into MSS networks in the L-Band and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands; and to ensure that ATC licensees meet the Commission's legal and technical requirements to develop and maintain their MSS networks and operate their ATC systems without causing harmful interference to other radio systems.
This information collection is used by the Commission to license commercial ATC radio communication services in the United States, including low-power ATC. The revised collection is to be used by the Commission to regulate equipment manufacturers and licensees of low-power ATC networks. Without the collection of information that would result from these final rules, the Commission would not have the necessary information to grant entities the authority to operate commercial ATC stations and provide telecommunications services to consumers.
OMB Control No.: 3060-1108.
Title: Consummation of Assignments and Transfers of Control of Authorization.
Form No.: N/A.
Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
Number of Respondents: 251 respondents; 251 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.
Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The Commission has authority for this information collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
Total Annual Burden: 251 hours.
Annual Cost Burden: $37,500.
Needs and Uses: This collection will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as an extension after this 60 day comment period has ended in order to obtain the full three-year clearance from OMB.
Without this collection of information, the Commission would not have critical information such as a change in a controlling interest in the ownership of the licensee. The Commission would not be able to carry out its duties under the Communications Act and to determine the qualifications of applicants to provide international telecommunications service, including applicants that are affiliated with foreign entities, and to determine whether and under what conditions the authorizations are in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Furthermore, without this collection of information, the Commission would not be able to maintain effective oversight of U.S. providers of international telecommunications services that are affiliated with, or involved in certain co-marketing or similar arrangements with, foreign entities that have market power.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,

Secretary.
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
[Docket No. 25-12]
Dollar General Logistics, LLC, Complainant v. Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp., Respondent.
Served: July 1, 2025

Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by Dollar General Logistics, LLC (the “Complainant”) against Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp. (the “Respondent”). Complainant states that the Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended, 46 U.S.C. 40101 et seq., and personal jurisdiction over Respondent as an ocean common carrier, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18), that has entered into a service contract, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(21), with Complainant.
Complainant is a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Tennessee with its principal place of business located in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.
Complainant identifies Respondent as a company existing under the laws of Tawain with its principal place of business in Keelung City, Taiwan, whose agent in the United States is Yang Ming (America) Corp., a company existing under the laws of the state of New York with its principal place of business in Newark, New Jersey.
Complainant alleges that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c); 41104(a)(2) and (a)(10). Complainant alleges these violations arose from a practice of systematically failing to meet service commitments, causing Complainant to pursue alternate transportation arrangements for cargo at an increased price, and other acts or omissions of the Respondent.
An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 25 days after the date of service.
The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/25-12/ . This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge shall be issued by July 1, 2026, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by January 15, 2027.
(Authority: 46 U.S.C. 41301; 46 CFR 502.61(c).)
David Eng,

Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
[Document Identifiers: CMS-116]
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

AGENCY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
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 Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

DATES:
Comments must be received by September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
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. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number: ___, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
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: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents
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 ADDRESSES ).
CMS-116 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) Application Form and Supporting Regulations
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 Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

Information Collections
1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) Application Form and Supporting Regulations; Use: Section 353 (b) of the Public Health Service Act specifies that the laboratory must submit an application in such form and manner as the Secretary shall prescribe that describes the characteristics of the laboratory and examinations and procedures performed by the laboratory. The application must be completed by entities performing laboratory's testing specimens for diagnostic or treatment purposes. This information is vital to the certification process. In this revision, changes were made to the form to facilitate its completion and data entry. We anticipate that the changes will not increase the time to complete the form. Form Number: CMS-116 (OMB control number: 0938-0581); Frequency: Biennially and Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector—Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 50,236; Total Annual Responses: 50,236; Total Annual Hours: 50,236. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Cheryl Murphy at Cheryl.Murphy@cms.hhs.gov. )
William N. Parham, III,

Director, Division of Information Collections and Regulatory Impacts, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
[Document Identifier: CMS-10106]
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Correction

AGENCY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION:
Notice, correction.

SUMMARY:
On June 12, 2025, CMS published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comment on a collection of information concerning CMS-10106 (OMB control number 0938-0930) titled “Medicare Authorization to Disclose Personal Health Information.” The number of total annual responses is incorrectly listed. This document corrects the error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William N. Parham, III, (410) 786-4669.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
In the June 12, 2025, issue of the Federal Register (90 FR 24803), we published a Paperwork Reduction Act notice requesting a 60-day public comment period for the information collection request identified under CMS-10106, OMB control number 0938-0930, and titled “Medicare Authorization to Disclose Personal Health Information.”

II. Explanation of Error
In the June 12, 2025 (90 FR 24803) notice, the number listed for the Total Annual Responses is incorrect. The incorrect number is listed language is located in the right column, line 18 on page 24804, “Total Annual Responses: 1,00,000.” All the other information contained in the June 12, 2025, notice is correct and remains unchanged. The related public comment period remains in effect and ends August 11, 2025.

III. Correction of Error
In FR Doc. 2025-10650 of June 12, 2025 (90 FR 24803), the language in the right column, line 18 on page 24804, “Total Annual Responses: 1,00,000.”, is corrected to read as follows:
“Total Annual Responses: 1,000,000.”
William N. Parham, III,

Director, Division of Information Collections and Regulatory Impacts, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
[Document Identifier: CMS-10765]
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Correction

AGENCY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION:
Notice, correction.

SUMMARY:
On June 27, 2025, CMS published a notice in the Federal Register that sought comment on a collection of information concerning CMS-10765 (OMB control number 0938-1420) entitled “Review Choice Demonstration for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Services.” The type of information collection request listed in the notice is incorrect. This document corrects the error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William N. Parham, III, (410) 786-4669.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
In the June 27, 2025, issue of the Federal Register (90 FR 27540), we published a Paperwork Reduction Act notice requesting a 30-day public comment period for the information collection request identified under CMS-10765, OMB control number 0938-1420, and titled “Review Choice Demonstration for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Services.”

II. Explanation of Error
In the June 27, 2025 (90 FR 27540) notice, the type of information collection request is incorrect. The incorrect language is located in the left column of page 27540, the third line from the bottom, and reads as follows “1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of the currently approved collection.” All the other information contained in the June 20, 2025, notice is correct and remains unchanged. The related public comment period remains in effect and ends August 19, 2025.

III. Correction of Error
In FR Doc. 2025-11900 of June 20, 2025 (90 FR 27540), page 27540, the language in the left column, the third line from the bottom “1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of the currently approved collection” is corrected to read as follows:
“1. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement with change without change of a previously approved collection.”
William N. Parham, III,

Director, Division of Information Collections and Regulatory Impacts, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings
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.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR Panel: Research Education and Training Programs (R25) Review.
Date: July 30, 2025.
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Mir Ahamed Hossain, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223, mirahamed.hossain@nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Research.
Date: July 31, 2025.
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Gianina Ramona Dumitrescu, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, SRB, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 8B, Rockville, MD 20892, (301) 827-0696, ramona.dumitrescu@nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Member Conflict: Topics in Immunity, Transmission and Dynamics of Infectious Diseases.
Date: August 5, 2025.
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Ann-Marie Michelle Roy, Ph.D., SSRO, Microbiology Research Review, Branch B, Program Management & Operations Branch, DEA/SRP RM 3E71, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-761-3100, ann-marie.brighenti@nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Member Conflict: Topics in Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Reproductive Sciences.
Date: August 5-6, 2025.
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Hui Chen, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6164, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1044, chenhui@csr.nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Pathway to Independence.
Date: August 7-8, 2025.
Time: 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Meysam Yazdankhah, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Scientific Review Branch, 11601 Landsdown Street, 3WF, Room Hoteling, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 402-6965, meysam.yazdankhah@nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Collaborative Applications: Impact of Sex Differences on Molecular Determinants of AD and Analytical and Clinical Biomarkers of AD and ADRD.
Date: August 8, 2025.
Time: 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Surojeet Sengupta, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 5134, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9223, surojeet.sengupta@nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Program Projects: Alzheimer's Disease and Aging.
Date: August 14-15, 2025.
Time: 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Ana Olariu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NINDS/NIH, NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9223, Ana.Olariu@nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Program Project P30: Cancer Research.
Date: August 15, 2025.
Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Caterina Bianco, MD, Ph.D., Chief, Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W110, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, (240) 276-6459, biancoc@mail.nih.gov.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Sterlyn H. Gibson,

Program Specialist, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings
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.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Career Development in Population Health Sciences.
Date: July 30, 2025.
Time: 10:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Ivan Tadeu Rebustini, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, SRB, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 8B, Rockville, MD 20892, (301) 827-1641, ivan.rebustini@nih.gov .
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Neuroimaging of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.
Date: July 31, 2025.
Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Jordan M. Moore, BS, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1002A1, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-0293, jordan.moore@nih.gov .
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Pain and Pain Related Conditions, Olfactory, Somatosensory, Taste Perception, Hearing Loss, Sensory Modulation and Training Grant Applications.
Date: August 5-6, 2025.
Time: 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Natalia Strunnikova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-0288, natalia.strunnikova@nih.gov .
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Oncology.
Date: August 5-6, 2025.
Time: 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Victoriya Volkova, Ph.D., DVM.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Special Topics in Bacterial-Host Interactions.
Date: August 5, 2025.
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
Contact Person: Mairi Noverr, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 5601 Fishers Lane Room, 3G13A, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 747-7530, mairi.noverr@nih.gov .
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: July 1, 2025.
Sterlyn H. Gibson,

Program Specialist, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Approval and Accreditation of AmSpec, LLC (Destrehan, LA) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:
Notice of approval and accreditation of AmSpec, LLC (Destrehan, LA) as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

SUMMARY:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec, LLC (Destrehan, LA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of May 8, 2024.

DATES:
AmSpec, LLC (Destrehan, LA) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of May 8, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501A North, Washington, DC 20004, tel. 202-344-1060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec, LLC, 14682 Airline Hwy, Destrehan, LA 70047, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. AmSpec, LLC (Destrehan, LA) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
API chapters | Title
3 | Tank Gauging.
7 | Temperature Determination.
8 | Sampling.
12 | Calculation of Petroleum Quantities.
17 | Marine Measurement.
AmSpec, LLC (Destrehan, LA) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
CBPL No. | ASTM | Title
27-01 | D287 | Standard Test Method for API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products (Hydrometer Method).
27-02 | D1298 | Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method.
27-03 | D4006 | Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oil by Distillation.
27-04 | D95 | Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation.
27-05 | D4928 | Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oils by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration.
27-06 | D473 | Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method.
27-07 | D4807 | Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oil by Membrane Filtration.
27-08 | D86 | Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure.
27-09 | D4953 | Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends (Dry Method).
27-11 | D445 | Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity).
27-13 | D4294 | Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry.
27-14 | D2622 | Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry.
27-33 | D5 | Standard Test Method for Penetration of Bituminous Materials.
27-46 | D5002 | Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, and API Gravity of Crude Oils by Digital Density Analyzer.
27-48 | D4052 | Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, and API Gravity of Liquids by Digital Density Meter.
27-50 | D93 | Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.
27-53 | D2709 | Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Middle Distillate Fuels by Centrifuge.
27-58 | D5191 | Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini Method).
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to CBPGaugersLabs@cbp.dhs.gov. Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.
Dated:
Lina M. Acosta,

Acting Laboratory Director, Houston, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Approval and Accreditation of Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Fort Lauderdale, FL) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:
Notice of approval and accreditation of Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Fort Lauderdale, FL), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

SUMMARY:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Fort Lauderdale, FL), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 7, 2024.

DATES:
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Fort Lauderdale, FL) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of August 7, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert P. Munivez, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 4150 Interwood South Parkway, Houston, TX 77032, tel. 281-560-2900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 3001 SW 3rd Ave., Suite #8, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13.
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Fort Lauderdale, FL) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
API chapter | Title
3 | Tank Gauging.
7 | Temperature Determination.
8 | Sampling.
9 | Density Determination.
12 | Calculation of Petroleum Quantities.
17 | Marine Measurement.
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Fort Lauderdale, FL), is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
CBPL No. | ASTM | Title
27-08 | D86 | Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure.
27-11 | D445 | Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity).
27-48 | D4052 | Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, and API Gravity of Liquids by Digital Density Meter.
27-57 | D7039 | Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel by Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry.
27-58 | D5191 | Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products and Liquid Fuels (Mini Method).
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (281) 560-2900. The inquiry may also be sent to CBPGaugersLabs@cbp.dhs.gov. Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.
Lina M. Acosta,

Acting Laboratory Director, Houston, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Approval of Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., (Levittown, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico) as a Commercial Gauger

AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:
Notice of approval of Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., (Levittown, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico), as a commercial gauger.

SUMMARY:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., (Levittown, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of February 27, 2024.

DATES:
Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., (Levittown, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico) was approved, as a commercial gauger as of February 27, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for February 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert P. Munivez, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 4150 Interwood South Parkway, Houston, Texas, tel. 281-560-2937.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., Calle Gregorio Ledesma HMNN-55 URB, Levittown, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico, 00949, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13.
Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., (Levittown, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
API chapters | Title
3 | Tank Gauging.
7 | Temperature Determination.
8 | Sampling.
11.1 | Dynamic Liquid Measurement Calculations.
12 | Calculations.
17 | Marine Measurement.
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to CBPGaugersLabs@cbp.dhs.gov. Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories .
Lina M. Acosta,

Acting Laboratory Director, Southwest Regional Science Center, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Approval and Accreditation of Laboratory Service, Inc. (Carteret, NJ) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:
Notice of approval and accreditation of Laboratory Service, Inc. (Carteret, NJ) as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

SUMMARY:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Laboratory Service, Inc. (Carteret, NJ), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 27, 2024.

DATES:
Laboratory Service, Inc. (Carteret, NJ) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of August 27, 2024. The next inspection date will be scheduled for August 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501A North, Washington, DC 20004, tel. 202-344-1060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Laboratory Service, Inc., 85 Lafayette St., Carteret, NJ 07008, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13 as of August 27, 2024.
Laboratory Service, Inc. (Carteret, NJ) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
API chapters | Title
3 | Tank Gauging.
7 | Temperature Determination.
8 | Sampling.
12 | Calculation of Petroleum Quantities.
17 | Marine Measurement.
Laboratory Service, Inc. (Carteret, NJ) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
CBPL No. | ASTM | Title
27-08 | D86 | Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure.
27-11 | D445 | Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity).
27-48 | D4052 | Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, and API Gravity of Liquids by Digital Density Meter.
N/A | D1364 | Standard Test Method for Water in Volatile Solvents (Karl Fischer Reagent Titration Method).
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to CBPGaugersLabs@cbp.dhs.gov. Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.
Lina M. Acosta,

Acting Laboratory Director, Houston, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL), as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:
Notice of accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

SUMMARY:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 22, 2024.

DATES:
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL), was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of August 22, 2024. The next inspection date will be scheduled for August 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert P. Munivez, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 4150 Interwood South Parkway, Houston, TX 77032, tel. 281-560-2937.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 8402 Laurel Fair Circle, Suite #110, Tampa, FL 33610, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13.
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):
API chapters | Title
3 | Tank Gauging.
7 | Temperature Determination.
8 | Sampling.
12 | Calculation of Petroleum Quantities.
17 | Marine Measurement.
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
CBPL No. | ASTM | Title
27-04 | D95 | Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation.
27-08 | D86 | Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure.
27-14 | D2622 | Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry.
27-48 | D4052 | Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, and API Gravity of Liquids by Digital Density Meter.
27-58 | D5191 | Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products and Liquid Fuels (Mini Method).
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to CBPGaugersLabs@cbp.dhs.gov. Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.
Lina M. Acosta,

Acting Laboratory Director, Houston Laboratories and Scientific Services.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Approval and Accreditation of AmSpec, LLC (Houston, TX) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:
Notice of approval and accreditation of AmSpec, LLC (Houston, TX), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

SUMMARY:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec, LLC (Houston, TX), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 27, 2024.

DATES:
AmSpec, LLC (Houston, TX) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of August 27, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501A North, Washington, DC 20004, tel. 202-344-1060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec, LLC, 16025-A Jacintoport Blvd., Houston, TX 77015, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13 as of August 27, 2024.
AmSpec, LLC (Houston, TX) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
API chapters | Title
3 | Tank Gauging.
7 | Temperature Determination.
8 | Sampling.
12 | Calculation of Petroleum Quantities.
17 | Marine Measurement.
AmSpec, LLC (Houston, TX) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
CBPL No. | ASTM | Title
27-03 | D4006 | Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oil by Distillation.
27-04 | D95 | Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation.
27-06 | D473 | Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method.
27-11 | D445 | Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity).
27-13 | D4294 | Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry.
27-46 | D5002 | Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, and API Gravity of Crude Oils by Digital Density Analyzer.
27-48 | D4052 | Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density, and API Gravity of Liquids by Digital Density Meter.
27-50 | D93 | Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to CBPGaugersLabs@cbp.dhs.gov. Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.
Lina M. Acosta,

Acting Laboratory Director, Houston, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Approval and Accreditation of NMK Resources, Inc. (Kenner, LA) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:
Notice of approval and accreditation of NMK Resources, Inc. (Kenner, LA) as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

SUMMARY:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that NMK Resources, Inc. (Kenner, LA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of May 15, 2024.

DATES:
NMK Resources, Inc. (Kenner, LA) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of May 15, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501A North, Washington, DC 20004, tel. 202-344-1060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that NMK Resources, Inc., 2330 Helena St., Kenner, LA 70062, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. NMK Resources, Inc. (Kenner, LA) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
API chapters | Title
3 | Tank Gauging.
7 | Temperature Determination.
8 | Sampling.
11 | Physical Properties Data.
12 | Calculation of Petroleum Quantities.
17 | Marine Measurement.
NMK Resources, Inc. (Kenner, LA) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
CBPL No. | ASTM | Title
27-04 | D95 | Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation.
27-11 | D445 | Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity).
27-13 | D4294 | Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry.
27-46 | D5002 | Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, and API Gravity of Crude Oils by Digital Density Analyzer.
27-48 | D4052 | Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, and API Gravity of Liquids by Digital Density Meter.
27-50 | D93 | Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.
N/A | D97 | Standard Test Method for Pour Point of Petroleum Products.
N/A | D4530 | Standard Test Method for Determination of Carbon Residue (Micro Method).
N/A | D482 | Standard Test Method for Ash from Petroleum Products.
N/A | D664 | Standard Test Method for Acid Number of Petroleum Products by Potentiometric Titration.
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to CBPGaugersLabs@cbp.dhs.gov. Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.
Lina M. Acosta,

Acting Laboratory Director, Houston, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt LP (Deer Park (Vopak), TX) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:
Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP (Deer Park (Vopak), TX), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

SUMMARY:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Saybolt LP (Deer Park (Vopak), TX), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 21, 2024.

DATES:
Saybolt LP (Deer Park (Vopak), TX) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of August 21, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert P. Munivez, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 4150 Interwood South Parkway, Houston, TX 77032, tel. 281-560-2937.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Saybolt LP, 2759 Independence Parkway, Deer Park, TX 77539, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13.
Saybolt LP (Deer Park (Vopak), TX) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
API chapters | Title
3 | Tank Gauging.
7 | Temperature Determination.
8 | Sampling.
12 | Calculation of Petroleum Quantities.
17 | Marine Measurement.
Saybolt LP (Deer Park (Vopak), TX) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
CBPL No. | ASTM | Title
27-08 | D86 | Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure.
27-11 | D445 | Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity).
27-48 | D4052 | Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, and API Gravity of Liquids by Digital Density Meter.
27-50 | D93 | Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to CBPGaugersLabs@cbp.dhs.gov. Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.
Lina M. Acosta,

Acting Laboratory Director, Houston Laboratories and Scientific Services.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-7092-N 19; OMB Control No: 2502-0615]
30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Disaster Response Survey and Disaster Recovery Survey

AGENCY:
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.

ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

DATES:
Comments Due Date: August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna Guido, Clearance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at Anna.P.Guido@hud.gov, telephone (202) 402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on December 11, 2024 at 89 FR 99896.

A. Overview of Information Collection
Title of Information Collection: Disaster Response Survey and Disaster Recovery Survey.
OMB Approval Number: 2502-0615.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Form Number: None.
Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The two Disaster Surveys (Disaster Response Survey and Disaster Recovery Survey) will assess the operational and capacity status of Housing Counseling Agencies impacted disasters through the life cycle of the disasters. These Surveys are necessary to assess the impact of the disasters on the operation of HUD-approved housing counseling agencies. These surveys will more accurately assess the current operating status and capacity of housing counseling agencies impacted by disasters through the life cycle of disasters. The information collected will be used to identify the needs of the housing counseling agency and to inform OHC about the types of support that would be the most responsive to the needs of agencies and their clients.
Information collection | Number of respondents | Frequency of response | Responses per annum | Burden hour per response | Annual burden hours | Hourly cost per response | Annual cost
Disaster Recovery Survey | 1,250 | 1 | 1,250 | 1 | 1,250 | $64.00 | $80,000.00
Disaster Response Survey | 1,250 | 3 | 3,750 | 1 | 3,750 | 64.00 | 240,000.00
Total | | | 5,000 | | 5,000 | | 320,000.00

B. Solicitation of Public Comment
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

C. Authority
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Anna Guido,

Department Clearance Officer, Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-7092-N 20; OMB Control No.: 2577-0218]
30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Indian Housing Block Grants (IHBG) Program

AGENCY:
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.

ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

DATES:
Comments Due Date: August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna Guido, Clearance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at Anna.P.Guido@hud.gov, telephone (202) 402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on April 28, 2025 at 90 FR 17611.

A. Overview of Information Collection
Title of Information Collection: Indian Housing Block Grants (IHBG) Program.
OMB Approval Number: 2577-0218.
Type of Request: Reinstatement with change of previously approved collection.
Form Number: SF-424, SF-424D, SF-425, HUD-2880, HUD-4117, HUD 4117 Appendix A, HUD 4117 Appendix B, HUD 4117 Appendix C, HUD 4117 Appendix D, HUD-4119, HUD-4119 Appendix A, HUD-4119 Appendix B, HUD-4119 Appendix C, HUD-4119 Appendix D, HUD-4123, HUD-4125, HUD-52736-A, HUD-52736-B, HUD-52737 IHP-APR, HUD-52737 GEMS IHP/APR, HUD-53248 IHBG-COMP APR.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use
Description of the need for the information and proposed use: HUD's Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) will use the pre-award and post-award information collected to assess program compliance, monitor grantee performance throughout the grant term, and to report annually to Congress. ONAP is responsible for managing the IHBG Formula and IHBG Competitive programs, as described below.
IHBG Formula Program: The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq. ) (NAHASDA) authorizes the IHBG Formula program. The program supports the development, management, and operation of affordable homeownership and rental housing; infrastructure development; and other forms of housing assistance intended for low-income persons. Federally recognized Native American tribes, Alaska Native villages, tribally designated housing entities, and a limited number of State-recognized tribes that were funded under the Indian Housing Program authorized by the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 are eligible to receive IHBG funds. Under the IHBG Formula Program, eligible recipients receive an equitable share of funds as appropriated by Congress.
IHBG Competitive Program: Since 2018, Congress has appropriated additional funding for the IHBG Competitive Grant (IHBG-COMP), also under assistance listing 14.867. IHBG-COMP prioritizes projects that increase the availability of affordable housing in Tribal communities with consideration to extent of need and administrative capacity. The regulations and requirements governing the IHBG formula program apply to the IHBG Competitive program. The IHBG-COMP Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOFO) are published on Grants.gov , where applicants submit applications.
Annual Reporting Burden: The annual reporting burden hours are based on the estimates provided below.
Information collection | Number of respondents | Frequency of response | Responses per annum | Burden hour per response | Annual burden hours | Hourly cost per response | Annual cost
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 (2501-0044) | 300 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
Assurances for Construction Programs SF-424D (2501-0044) | 300 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
Federal Financial Report SF-425 (2501-0044) | 300 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
Applicant Disclosure Report HUD-2880 (2501-0044) | 300 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
| HUD Applicant/Recipient Assurances and Certifications HUD-424 (2501-0044) | 300 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
Formula Response Form HUD-4117 | 500 | 1 | 500 | 2 | 1,000 | $45.14 | $45,140.00
Formula Response Form HUD-4117 Appendix A | 50 | 1 | 50 | 2 | 100 | 45.14 | 4,514.00
Formula Response Form HUD-4117 Appendix B | 50 | 1 | 50 | 2 | 100 | 45.14 | 4,514.00
Formula Response Form HUD-4117 Appendix C | 50 | 1 | 50 | 2 | 100 | 45.14 | 4,514.00
Formula Response Form HUD-4117 Appendix D | 50 | 1 | 50 | 2 | 100 | 45.14 | 4,514.00
Census Challenge Form HUD-4119 | 15 | 1 | 15 | 150 | 2,250 | 45.14 | 101,565.00
Census Challenge Form HUD-4119 Appendix A | 15 | 1 | 15 | 10 | 150 | 45.14 | 6,771.00
Census Challenge Form HUD-4119 Appendix B | 15 | 1 | 15 | 10 | 150 | 45.14 | 6,771.00
Census Challenge Form HUD-4119 Appendix C | 15 | 1 | 15 | 15 | 225 | 45.14 | 10,156.50
Census Challenge Form HUD-4119 Appendix D | 15 | 1 | 15 | 10 | 150 | 45.14 | 6,771.00
Cost Summary HUD-4123 | 300 | 1 | 300 | 40 | 12,000 | 45.14 | 541,680.00
Implementation Schedule HUD-4125 | 300 | 1 | 300 | 40 | 12,000 | 45.14 | 541,680.00
Depository Agreement, Bank Accounts HUD-52736-A | 15 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 15 | 45.14 | 677.10
Depository Agreement, Broker/Dealer HUD-52736-B | 15 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 15 | 45.14 | 677.10
HUD-52737 IHBG IHP-APR | 20 | 2 | 40 | 62 | 2,480 | 45.14 | 111,947.20
HUD-52737 GEMS IHBG IHP/APR | 370 | 2 | 740 | 62 | 45,880 | 45.14 | 2,071,023.20
HUD-53248 IHBG-COMP APR | 65 | 1 | 65 | 30 | 1,950 | 45.14 | 88,023.00
Record retention | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 45.14 | 1,354.20
Totals | 3,390 | 25 | 2,280 | 442 | 78,695 | 45.14 | 3,552,292.30

B. Solicitation of Public Comment
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

C. Authority
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Anna Guido,

Department Clearance Officer, Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-7092-N 18; OMB Control No: 2502-0554]
30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Request for Prepayment of Section 202 or 202/8 Project

AGENCY:
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.

ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

DATES:
Comments Due Date: August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna Guido, Clearance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at Anna.P.Guido@hud.gov, telephone (202) 402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on December 23, 2024 at 89 FR 104558.

A. Overview of Information Collection
Title of Information Collection: Request for Prepayment of Section 202 or 202/8 Project.
OMB Approval Number: 2502-0554.
Type of Request: Reinistatement of a currently approved collection.
Form Number: HUD-9808.
Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Owner must execute the Section 202 Prepayment Use Agreement provided as Attachment 1 to this Notice that will ensure the continued operation of the project until at least 20 years following the maturity date of the original loan under terms at least as advantageous to existing and future tenants as the terms required by the original loan agreement. The Use Agreement must be executed by the Owner and the Department and recorded upon HUD's approval of the prepayment transaction.
Information collection | Number of respondents | Frequency of response | Responses per annum | Burden hour per response | Annual burden hours | Hourly cost per response | Annual cost
HUD-9808 | 1,566 | 1 | 1,566 | 2 | 3,132.00 | $39.77 | $124,559.64
Section 202 Use Agreement | 1,566 | 1 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
Other Use Agreement | Less than 10 | | | | | |
Other Use Agreement | Less than 10 | | | | | |
Total | 1,566 | | 3,132 | 2 | 3,132 | | 124,559.64

B. Solicitation of Public Comment
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

C. Authority
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Anna Guido,

Department Clearance Officer, Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. FR-6271-N-05]
Adoption of Energy Efficiency Standards for New Construction of HUD- and USDA-Financed Housing; Notice for Comment

AGENCY:
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Department of Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION:
Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY:
HUD and USDA (“the agencies”) published a Final Determination on April 26, 2024, adopting the 2021 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2019 energy codes as minimum requirements for programs covered under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The Final Determination found that adoption of the energy codes would have no negative impact on the affordability and availability of EISA-covered housing. The agencies plan to review the analysis contained in the Final Determination and are seeking public comments to inform the review.

DATES:
Comment due date: August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this rule. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two (2) methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
HUD: Scott Knittle, Principal Deputy General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10180, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-2244 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.
USDA: Robert Bogan, Administrative Management Specialist, Program Support Services, Rural Housing Service; Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6900-S, Washington, DC 20250; telephone number 202-557-1000 (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Statutory Requirements
Section 481 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA,” Pub. L. 110-140) amended section 109 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (Cranston-Gonzalez) (42 U.S.C. 12709), which establishes procedures for setting minimum energy standards for certain categories of newly constructed housing financed by HUD and USDA. In addition to these EISA-specified categories, EISA also applies to new construction projects in the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and the Housing Trust Fund program through their program statutes or regulations. Table 1 provides HUD and USDA programs covered by EISA:
HUD programs | Legal authority | Regulations or notices
Public Housing (Capital Fund) | Section 9(d) and Section 30 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g(d) and 1437z-2) | 24 CFR part 905.
Capital Fund Financing Program | Section 9(d) and Section 30 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g(d) and 1437z-2) | 24 CFR part 905 subpart E.
*HOPE VI Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing | Section 24 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v) | FR-5415-N-07.
Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants | Section 24 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v) | Implementation Grants notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).
Project-Based Voucher Program | Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) | 24 CFR part 983.
Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly | Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q), as amended | 24 CFR part 891.
Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities | Section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013) as amended | 24 CFR part 891.
Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) | Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-55), as amended by Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76) and subsequent HUD Appropriations Acts | RAD notice Revision 4 (H 2019-09 PIH 2019-23), as amended by RAD Supplemental Notices 4B (H2023-08 PIH 2023-19 (HA)) and 4C (H2025-01 PIH 2025-03 (HA).
FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance Programs | National Housing Act, Sections 203(b) (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)), Section 251 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-16), Section 247 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-12), Section 203(h) (12 U.S.C. 1709(h)), Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-289), Section 248 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13) | 24 CFR part 203, subpart A; 203.18(i); 203.43i; 203.49; 203.43h.
FHA Multifamily Mortgage Insurance Programs | Sections 213, 220, 221, 231, and 232 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.1715e, 12 U.S.C.1715v, 12 U.S.C.1715k, 12 U.S.C.17151, 12 U.S.C.1715w). | 24 CFR parts 200, subpart A; 213; 220; 221, subparts C and D; 231; and 232.
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) [By regulation] | Cranston-Gonzalez sections 215(b)(4) and 215(a)(1)(F) (42 U.S.C. 12745(b)(4) and 42 U.S.C. 12745(a)(1)(F)) require HOME units to meet minimum energy efficiency standards promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with Cranston-Gonzalez section 109 (42 U.S.C. 12745) | Final HOME Rule at www.onecpd.info/home/home-final-rule/ reserves the energy standard for a separate rulemaking at 24 CFR 92.251.
Housing Trust Fund [By regulation] | Title I of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Section 1131 (Pub. L. 110-289, 12 U.S.C. 4568.) | 24 CFR 93.301(a)(2)(ii), Property Standards, requires compliance with Cranston Gonzalez section 109 (42 U.S.C. 12709).
* Program no longer funded or no longer funds new construction.
USDA programs | Legal authority | Regulations
Section 502 Guaranteed Housing Loans | Section 502 of Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472) | 7 CFR part 3555.
Section 502 Rural Housing Direct Loans | Section 502 of Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472) | 7 CFR part 3550.
Section 523 Mutual Self Help Technical Assistance Grants, homeowner participants | Section 523 of Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c) | 7 CFR part 1944 subpart I.
EISA references two standards: the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers/Illuminating Electrical Society Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 90.1). The IECC standard applies to single family homes and multifamily low-rise buildings (up to 3 stories), while the ASHRAE 90.1 standard applies to multifamily residential buildings with 4 or more stories. For both agencies, applicability is limited to newly constructed housing and does not include the purchase or repair of existing housing.
The IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 are industry-based consensus codes that are typically updated on three-year cycles. Following each update, HUD and USDA are required to adopt the new versions of the IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 within one year. If the agencies are unable to do so, the agencies must “make a determination that the revised codes do not negatively affect the availability or affordability” of the covered housing, and the Secretary of Energy must determine “that the revised code or standard would improve energy efficiency” in order for the agencies to consider adopting the updated versions of the IECC and ASHRAE 90.1.

Preliminary and Final Determination
On May 18, 2023, HUD and USDA published a Preliminary Determination (88 FR 31773) that the 2021 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2019 did not negatively affect the affordability and availability of EISA-covered housing. After receiving feedback during the public comment period, the agencies published the Final Determination on April 26, 2024 (89 FR 33112) with an updated economic analysis and found that adoption of the standards would not negatively impact the affordability and availability of EISA-covered housing.
As outlined in Section I. F. of the Final Determination, changes to the Preliminary Determination based on public comments included updated economic factors to reflect changes to the economic landscape due to the COVID-19 pandemic and global supply chain issues, adjustments to cash flow and financing factors to reflect typical financing factors for HUD and USDA borrowers, updates to the energy codes adopted at the state-level, more information on alternative compliance paths, and adjusted implementation and compliance timelines.
The most significant update to the affordability analysis was the application of a supply chain cost increase factor of 37 percent and an energy price increase factor of 32 percent to reflect changes in costs following the underlying cost-effectiveness analysis published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 2021. The supply chain cost increase factor was determined using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Producer Price Index for inputs to residential construction less energy, as reported by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). The energy price increase factor was developing using data collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. More detail on these factors can be found in Sections I. F. and II. C. 4. of the Final Determination. Other updated economic factors included the energy price escalator, mortgage interest rate, and discount rate. Adjustments to cash flow and financing factors included revisions to the down payment rate, mortgage insurance premium, and home size.

Affordability and Availability Analysis
HUD and USDA's affordability analysis considered several metrics of cost effectiveness, including life-cycle cost (LCC) savings, incremental cost, years to positive cashflow, and simple payback period, which combined to holistically assess affordability. More information on each of these metrics is available in the Final Determination. In the Final Determination, the affordability analysis is primarily presented through the various scenarios in tables 9 through 20 for the 2021 IECC (89 FR 33137-33161) and tables 21 through 29 for ASHRAE 90.1-2019 (89 FR 33164-33175). For the 2021 IECC, the analysis considers impacts at the national, climate zone, and state levels; a high-interest rate scenario; and different housing types. It also considers State adoption of energy codes. As of December 2023, 41 states and the District of Columbia (DC) had adopted a version of the IECC that was equivalent to or higher than the prior HUD and USDA standard of the 2009 IECC. The remaining 9 states had either adopted standards that pre-date the 2009 IECC (1 state) or had no state-wide codes (8 states). See Table 11 of the Final Determination (89 FR 33147) for more information. As of December 2023, 33 states and DC had adopted an ASHRAE 90.1 standard that was above the prior HUD and USDA standard, while 17 states had adopted codes that were equivalent to or below the prior HUD and USDA standard or had no statewide codes. See Table 23 of the Final Determination (89 FR 33166) for more information.
Tables 13 (89 FR 33153) and 19 (89 FR 33158-33159) in the Final Determination summarize the affordability analysis for adopting the 2021 IECC in single family dwelling units, breaking down incremental costs by climate zone and by State. The agencies found the incremental cost of adoption to be $7,229, with incremental costs ranging from $3,662 to $8,845. Incremental costs for adoption of the 2021 IECC in those states currently at the 2009 IECC or its equivalent range from a low of $3,046 (Hawaii) to a high of $11,523 (Alaska), with most states typically in the $6,000 range.
Additionally, Table 14 in the Final Determination (89 FR 33155) summarizes the affordability analysis for adopting the 2021 IECC in low-rise multifamily housing. The agencies found that the incremental costs for this housing type, as well as associated savings, are generally lower than for single family homes, as a result of both differences in unit size and building type. Incremental costs average $3,002/unit nationally.
HUD and USDA also analyzed the cost effectiveness of adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2019 for mid- and high-rise buildings using methodology adopted by DOE. Tables 26 (89 FR 33171) and 27 (89 FR 33172) in the Final Determination provide incremental costs for a mid-rise multifamily prototype building in various climate zones and for each State. The agencies found that the national average additional construction cost of adopting the ASHRAE 90.1-2019 is $574 per building or $18 per unit. In some areas, construction costs were estimated to decrease because the updated code allows for smaller and fewer fixtures and appliances. Overall, given LCC savings and potential decreases in construction costs, the agencies determined that the adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2019 would not negatively impact the affordability of the multifamily housing.
The agencies also determined that adoption of the 2021 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2019 would not negatively impact the availability of covered housing. Availability of housing is a measure associated with whether builders will make such housing available to consumers at the higher code level; i.e., whether the higher cost per unit as a result of complying with the revised code will impact whether that unit is likely to be built or not. The Final Determination, along with the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), looked at various availability scenarios and determined that availability would not be negatively affected.

Delayed Compliance Dates
On March 10, 2025, HUD published a notice delaying outstanding compliance dates by six months for HUD programs (90 FR 11622). On April 4, 2025, USDA similarly published a notice delaying compliance dates for USDA programs by six months (90 FR 14775). The extension was intended to provide additional time for HUD and USDA to review questions of fact, law, and policy supporting the Final Determination and determine the need for HUD to develop further technical assistance. For compliance dates that had already gone into effect, such as the HOME Investment Partnerships program and Housing Trust Fund program, HUD encouraged entities struggling to meet the requirement to contact HUD.
To allow for more flexible compliance with the 2021 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2019 requirements, HUD and USDA adopted a list of acceptable alternative compliance paths for certifications that meet or exceed the energy efficiency of the adopted standards. These alternative compliance path options include specific versions of the Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR program and DOE's Zero Energy Ready Homes program; third-party high performance building standards including Enterprise Green Communities, LEED, National Green Building Standard, Phius, Passive House Institute, Earth Advantage, Earthcraft, Living Building Challenge, Pearl Certification, Green Globes, BREEAM, and GreenPoint Rated; and the 2024 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2022. The agencies received multiple public comments from various stakeholders that specifically requested the 2024 IECC be accepted as an alternative compliance path. The full list of alternative compliance paths is available by request at energyaction@hud.gov.

II. This Notice
HUD and USDA are considering reexamining the analysis in the Final Determination and are seeking public comment to inform a potential review, consistent with the Executive Action, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.” The public has had time to begin planning and implementing the Final Determination's requirements. With that perspective, HUD and USDA would like to better understand how the adoption of the updated codes is working in practice. The agencies welcome comments on any aspect of the Final Determination and also specifically seek comments on the following matters.
1. In the Final Determination, HUD and USDA updated several economic and cash flow factors. The affordability analysis included in the Final Determination reflected the economic landscape around the time of publication. Have any of these factors changed since the publication of the Final Determination? If so, which specific economic factors should be reconsidered and how are they different from the analysis included in the Final Determination?
2. As of April 17, 2025, nine states have adopted the 2021 IECC and 15 states have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2019 based on DOE's State Energy Code Adoption map. For builders and developers operating in States that have already adopted the 2021 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2019, are you facing any challenges to implementing these building codes?
3. The agencies are interested in feedback from builders who are already building to higher energy performance standards listed on the alternative compliance paths list. What advantages or disadvantages have you seen in the construction of higher performance homes? Please be specific as to the type of housing—owner-occupied single family or entity-owned multifamily rental housing.
4. The agencies seek to provide builders with the most flexibility in meeting current baseline energy performance measures. This includes the list of alternative compliance paths, which responds to the public comments of industry that the IECC 2024 is a preferred code for builders and it meets or exceeds IECC 2021. The agencies seek to keep this list of alternative compliance paths updated as industry evolves. What other codes or standards are builders and industry aware of beyond the list of proposed alternative compliance paths that meet or exceed the baseline of IECC 2021 that are active in markets and ready for inclusion in the list of alternatives?

III. Electronic Access and Filing
Comments submitted electronically through the http://www.regulations.gov website can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.
All comments and communications properly submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at (202) 708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as from individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.
David C. Woll Jr.,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Todd Lindsey,

Deputy Under Secretary, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Loretta Clement, M.D.; Decision and Order
On February 18, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Loretta Clement, M.D., of Cincinnati, Ohio (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FC2337500, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Ohio, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.” Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 3. ^1 “A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the registrant's/applicant's right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].” 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
^1 Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated May 7, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on February 21, 2024, the DI attempted to personally serve Registrant at her registered address, mail to address, and personal residence but Registrant was not at any of these locations. RFAAX 2, at 1. Finally, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant on March 14, 2025, and the email was not returned. Id. at 2. The DI also spoke with Registrant on the phone to explain the OSC process on March 17, 2025. Id. Here, the Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by email and that the DI's efforts to serve Registrant by other means were “ ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [Registrant] of the pendency of the action.’ ” Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)); see also Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 34,552, 34,552 (2017) (finding that service by email satisfies due process where the email is not returned as undeliverable and other methods have been unsuccessful).
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.” Id. 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also 21 CFR 1316.67.

Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, on or about August 14, 2024, the State Medical Board of Ohio (the Board) indefinitely suspended Registrant from the practice of medicine and surgery in the State of Ohio. RFAAX 1, at 2.
According to Ohio online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, ^2
Registrant's Ohio medical license is inactive. eLicense Ohio Professional License Look-Up, https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in Ohio, the state in which he is registered with DEA. ^3
^2 Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency “may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.” United States Department of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979).
^3 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), “[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the contrary.” The material fact here is that Registrant, as of the date of this decision, is not licensed to practice medicine in Ohio. Accordingly, Registrant may dispute the Agency's finding by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed and served by email to the other party and to the DEA Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov.

Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (“The Attorney General can register a physician to dispense controlled substances ‘if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.’ . . . The very definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he practices’ to dispense controlled substances. § 802(21).”). The Agency has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371, 71,372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (1978). ^4
^4 This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term “practitioner” to mean “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . ., to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617.
According to Ohio statute, “[n]o person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog,” except pursuant to a “prescription issued by a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs if the prescription was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West 2024). Further, a “ ‘[l]icensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs’ or ‘prescriber’ means an individual who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or dangerous drugs or drug therapy related devices in the course of the individual's professional practice.” Id. § 4729.01(I). The Ohio statute further defines an authorized prescriber as “[a] physician authorized under Chapter 4731. of the Revised Code to practice medicine and surgery, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine and surgery.” Id. § 4729.01(I)(4). Additionally, Ohio law permits “[a] licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs, if acting in the course of professional practice, in accordance with the laws regulating the professional's practice” to prescribe or administer schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances to patients. Id. § 3719.06(A)(1)(a)-(b).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Ohio. As already discussed, a physician is authorized by law to prescribe or administer drugs in Ohio only when authorized to practice medicine and surgery under Ohio law. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Ohio and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Ohio, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.

Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FC2337500 issued to Loretta Clement, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Loretta Clement, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Loretta Clement, M.D., for additional registration in Ohio. This Order is effective August 6, 2025.

Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 1, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .
Heather Achbach,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1117-0031]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection; Application for Registration Under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993 (DEA Form 510); Renewal Application for Registration Under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993 (DEA Form 510A)

AGENCY:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

ACTION:
60-Day notice.

SUMMARY:
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 5, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Heather E. Achbach, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 776-3882; Email: Heather.E.Achbach@dea.gov or DEA.PRA@dea.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
—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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of This Information Collection
1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.
2. Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Registration under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993 (DEA Form 510); Renewal Application for Registration under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993 (DEA Form 510A).
3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: DEA Form 510 and DEA Form 510A. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Affected public (Primary): Business or other for-profit. Affected public (Other): Not-for-profit institutions; Federal, State, local, and tribal governments.
Abstract: The DEA implements the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) which requires that every person who manufactures or distributes a list I chemical shall annually obtain a registration for that purpose. The DEA will be revising the proposed information collection instruments concerning the liability questions on the Application for Registration under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993; and Renewal Application for Registration under Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993. Over the years, many applicants have answered some of the liability questions incorrectly. These changes will avoid confusion to the applicant by separating compound questions into multiple parts that will require the applicant to answer them individually.
5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: DEA estimates that 764 registrants participate in this information collection, taking an estimated 764 mins per registrant annually.
6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the proposed collection: DEA estimates that this collection takes 156 annual burden hours.
7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: $0.
Total Burden Hours
Activity | Number of respondents | Frequency | Total annual responses | Time per response (hours) | Total annual burden (hours)
DEA 510 | 161 | 1 | 161 | 0.33 (20 minutes) | 53
DEA 510a | 603 | 1 | 603 | 0.17 (10 minutes) | 103
Unduplicated Total | 764 | 1 | 764 | 0.204 | 156
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Darwin Arceo,

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1117-0015]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection; Application for Registration for Narcotic Treatment Programs—DEA Form 363, Application for Registration Renewal for Narcotic Treatment Programs—DEA Form 363a

AGENCY:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

ACTION:
60-Day notice.

SUMMARY:
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 5, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Heather E. Achbach, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 776-3882; Email: Heather.E.Achbach@dea.gov or DEA.PRA@dea.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
—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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of This Information Collection
1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.
2. Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Registration for Narcotic Treatment Programs—DEA Form 363; Application for Registration Renewal for Narcotic Treatment Programs—DEA Form 363a.
3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: No form number is associated with this collection. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:
Affected public (Primary): Business or other for-profit.
Affected public (Other): Not-for-profit institutions; Federal, State, local, and tribal governments.
Abstract: The Controlled Substances Act requires practitioners who dispense narcotic drugs to individuals for maintenance or detoxification treatment to register annually with DEA. ^1 21 U.S.C. 822, 823; 21 CFR 1301.11 and 1301.13. Registration is a necessary control measure and helps to prevent diversion by ensuring the closed system of distribution of controlled substances can be monitored by DEA and the businesses and individuals handling controlled substances are qualified to do so and are accountable.
^1 This registration requirement is waived for certain practitioners under specified circumstances. See 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2).
5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: DEA estimates that 1,853 registrants participate in this information collection. The time per response is 20 minutes for DEA-363, and 10 minutes for DEA-363a.
6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the proposed collection: DEA estimates that this collection takes 398 annual burden hours.
7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: $0.
Total Burden Hours
Activity | Number of respondents | Frequency | Total annual responses | Time per response (hours) | Total annual burden (hours)
DEA 363 | 517 | 1 | 517 | 0.33 (20 minutes) | 171
DEA 363a | 1,336 | 1 | 1,336 | 0.17 (10 minutes) | 227
Total | 1,853 | 1 | 1,853 | 0.215 | 398
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Darwin Arceo,

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1117-0029]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection; Annual Reporting for Manufacturers of Listed Chemicals

AGENCY:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

ACTION:
60-Day notice.

SUMMARY:
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 5, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Heather E. Achbach, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 776-3882; Email: Heather.E.Achbach@dea.gov or DEA.PRA@dea.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
—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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of This Information Collection
1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.
2. Title of the Form/Collection: Annual Reporting for Manufacturers of Listed Chemicals.
3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: No form number is associated with this collection. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:
Affected public (Primary): Business or other for-profit.
Affected public (Other): Not-for-profit institutions; Federal, State, local, and tribal governments.
Abstract: Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 830(b)(2) and 21 CFR 1310.05(d), manufacturers of listed chemicals must file annual reports of manufacturing, inventory, and use data for the listed chemicals they manufacture. These reports allow DEA to monitor the volume and availability of domestically manufactured listed chemicals, which may be subject to diversion for the illicit production of controlled substances.
5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: DEA estimates that 45 registrants participate in this information collection, taking an estimated 30 mins per registrant annually.
6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the proposed collection: DEA estimates that this collection takes 90 annual burden hours.
7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: $0.
Total Burden Hours
Activity | Number of respondents | Frequency | Total annual responses | Time per response (hours) | Total annual burden (hours)
Electronic | 45 | 4 | 180 | 0.5 (30 minutes) | 90
Paper | | | | N/A |
Unduplicated Totals | 45 | 4 | 180 | 0.5 | 90
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Darwin Arceo,

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1103-0119
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement Without Change to a Previously Approved Collection; U.S. Department of Justice Self Reportable Activities

AGENCY:
Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.

ACTION:
30-Day notice.

SUMMARY:
The Justice Management Division, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until August 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Karen Daniels, Security and Emergency Planning Staff, 145 N Street NE, Suite 2W, (202) 514-2351, karen.daniels@usdoj.gov .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2025, 90 FR 18709, allowing a 60-day comment period. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and/or
—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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain . Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering either the title of the information collection or the OMB Control Number 1103-0119. This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov . Follow the instructions to view Department of Justice, information collections currently under review by OMB.
DOJ 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 DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.

Overview of This Information Collection
1. Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement of a previously approved collection.
2. Title of the Form/Collection: US Department of Justice Self Reportable Activities.
3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: OMB #1103-0119.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Affected Public Federal Government. Individuals who are contractors for the Department of Justice or who are processed for access to classified information by the Department of Justice..
Abstract: Self-reporting requirements set forth in the Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy Statement 1700.04, Department Personnel Security Reporting Requirements, issued April 18, 2018, apply to non-federal employee personnel affiliated with the DOJ. The policy contains reporting requirements that are applicable to the entire DOJ workforce as well as reporting requirements that apply only to personnel occupying a national security position or who have access to classified information. The requirements relating to national security are mandated by the Director of National Intelligence as the Security Executive Agent. The majority of the reports relate to the submitter's personal conduct and activities. There is one form for personnel to submit information on other personnel, consistent with government-wide reporting requirements. This collection request seeks approval for contractors and other non-federal employees who are processed for access to classified information to utilize the Department's automated reporting system called iReport, or, for the small population with no access to the IT system, to utilize PDF fillable forms to report the required information. The Security and Emergency Planning Staff, and other Department Security Offices, will use the reported information to determine the submitter's continued fitness for employment at the Department of Justice or continued eligibility for access to national security information. The Department security offices for each agency component will review, evaluate, and adjudicate the information received.
5. Obligation to Respond: Department-wide population covered by the requirement to self-report information in the forms listed in Sections 2a and 2b is estimated at 57,744. It is estimated that only three percent (1,732) will actually need to self-report. Department-wide population covered by the requirement to report information in the forms listed in Sections 2c through 2l is estimated to be 604. Amount of time estimated for an average reported is less than ten minutes.
6. Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 35,000.
7. Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 minutes.
8. Frequency: On occasion.
9. Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 389 Burden Hours.
10. Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Darwin Arceo,

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Extension Package for Form ETA-9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, and Appendices

AGENCY:
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.

ACTION:
Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY:
The Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) for Application for Permanent Employment Certification; and related information collection and retention requirements (OMB Control Number 1205-0451), which covers Form ETA-9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification; Form ETA-9089, Final Determination: Permanent Employment Certification Approval; Form ETA-9089, Appendix A, Foreign Worker Information; Form ETA-9089, Appendix B, Additional Worksite Information; Form ETA-9089, Appendix C, Supplemental Information; Form ETA-9089, Appendix D, Special Recruitment for College and University Teachers, and Form ETA-9089, General Instructions. This action seeks an extension of the information collection without changes. This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

DATES:
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained for free by contacting Brian Pasternak, Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, by telephone at 202-693-8200 (this is not a toll-free number), TTY 1-877-889-5627 (this is not a toll-free number), or by email at ETA.OFLC.Forms@dol.gov.
Instructions: Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by email at ETA.OFLC.Forms@dol.gov. To ensure proper consideration, include the OMB control number 1205-0451.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Pasternak, Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, by telephone at 202-693-8200 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at ETA.OFLC.Forms@dol.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DOL, in its continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program ensures the public provides all necessary data in the desired format, the reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
Section 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A), requires the Secretary of Labor to certify that any foreign worker seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers “able, willing, qualified, and available” to perform such labor. ^1 DOL uses Form ETA-9089 and its appendices to collect information about a sponsoring employer's job offer and a foreign national's education and work history, which are necessary to determine whether the admission of that foreign national meets the requirements for certification under Section 212(a).
^1 See also 20 CFR 656.2(c).
Employers seeking to sponsor workers as sheepherders or in Schedule A occupations file Form ETA-9089 directly with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS also accepts the Form ETA-9089 for its National Interest Waiver program.
This information collection is authorized by INA Sections 212(a)(5)(A), 203(b)(2), and 203(b)(3) and 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2) and (b)(3) and 1182(a)(5)(A), DOL and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have promulgated regulations to implement provisions of the INA at 20 CFR part 656 and 8 CFR 204.5. This information collection is subject to 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 it is approved by the OMB under the PRA 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 Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The current ICR expires October 31, 2025. DOL seeks to extend, without changes, the validity of Form ETA-9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification; Form ETA-9089, Final Determination: Permanent Employment Certification Approval; Form ETA-9089, Appendix A, Foreign Worker Information; Form ETA-9089, Appendix B, Additional Worksite Information; Form ETA-9089, Appendix C, Supplemental Information; Form ETA-9089, Appendix D, Special Recruitment for College and University Teachers, and Form ETA-9089, General Instructions.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments regarding this ICR to the contact shown in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be written to receive consideration, and they will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the final ICR. To help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB control number 1205-0451.
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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 ( e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).
Agency: DOL-ETA.
Type of Review: Extension Without Changes.
Title of Collection: Application for Permanent Employment Certification.
Forms: Form ETA-9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification; Form ETA-9089, Final Determination: Permanent Employment Certification Approval; Form ETA-9089, Appendix A, Foreign Worker Information; Form ETA-9089, Appendix B, Additional Worksite Information; Form ETA-9089, Appendix C, Supplemental Information; Form ETA-9089, Appendix D, Special Recruitment for College and University Teachers, and Form ETA-9089, General Instructions.
OMB Control Number: 1205-0451.
Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Private Sector (businesses or other for profits); Not-for-profit Institutions; Government, State, Local and Tribal Governments.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 40,576.33.
Annual Frequency: Varies by form.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 954,186.66.
Estimated Time per Response: Varies by form.
Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 342,449.42 hours.
Total Estimated Annual Other Costs: $18,639,521.42.
(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).)
Susan Frazier,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
[OMB Control No. 1250-0002]
Proposed Revision of Information Collection Request; Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor

AGENCY:
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.

ACTION:
Request for public comments.

SUMMARY:
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request helps to ensure that: requested data can be provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is soliciting comments on the information collection, Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor.

DATES:
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments for OFCCP-2025-0004. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket, with no changes. Because your comment will be made public, you are responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number or confidential business information.
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
Written/Paper Submissions: Submit written/paper submissions in the following way:
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Mail or visit DOL-OFCCP, Division of Policy and Program Development, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room C-3325, Washington, DC 20210.
• OFCCP will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine Eschbach, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-0101 or toll free at 1-800-397-6251. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services. Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (large print, braille, audio recording) upon request by calling the numbers listed above.
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 793; 38 U.S.C. 4212; 41 CFR 60-300.61; and 41 CFR 60-741.61.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
OFCCP administers and enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 503), and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended (VEVRAA). Section 503 prohibits employment discrimination against applicants and employees based on disability and requires Federal contractors and subcontractors to take steps to employ, advance in employment, and otherwise treat qualified individuals without discrimination based on disabilities. Its basic coverage requirements apply to contractors with a federal contract or subcontract of more than $15,000. VEVRAA requires contractors to take steps to employ and advance in employment, qualified individuals, namely disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, active-duty wartime or campaign badge veterans, and Armed Forces service medal veterans, and by regulation prohibits employment discrimination against protected veterans and otherwise treat qualified individuals without discrimination based on their status as a protected veteran. Its requirements apply to contractors with a federal contract or subcontract of $150,000 or more. Under both laws, OFCCP is required to institute a prompt investigation of each complaint it receives.
At the time this information collection was last approved, OFCCP also enforced Executive Order 11246 (E.O. 11246). E.O. 11246 prohibited Federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin. It also prohibited Federal contractors and subcontractors from taking adverse employment actions against applicants or employees because they inquired about, discussed, or disclosed information about their pay or the pay of their co-workers, subject to certain limitations. On January 21, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14173 (E.O. 14173), which revoked E.O. 11246. Therefore, applicants and employees of Federal contractors and subcontractors, authorized representatives, or third parties may file complaints of employment discrimination with OFCCP pursuant to Section 503 or VEVRAA but may no longer file complaints with OFCCP pursuant to E.O. 11246.
OFCCP is requesting approval to revise questions on the Complaint of Employment Discrimination Involving a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor form (CC-4) and Pre-Complaint Inquiry for Employment Discrimination Involving a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor form (CC-390) to align with E.O. 14173 by removing items related to E.O. 11246 from these forms.
OFCCP seeks the approval of these information collection instruments in order to carry out its statutory responsibilities under Section 503 and VEVRAA, including its obligation to promptly investigate the complaints filed under either law.

II. Desired Focus of Comments
OFCCP is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to the Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor. OFCCP is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of OFCCP's estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection 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, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.
Background documents related to this information collection request are available at https://regulations.gov. Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

III. Current Actions
This information collection is for OFCCP's complaint program, OMB Control Number 1250-0002. OFCCP does not anticipate changes with respect to the number of respondents, responses, or burden hours from the previous information collection request. OFCCP has updated the burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request due to changes in copying and mailing costs since the last approval.
Agency: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Title of Collection: Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor.
Forms: CC-4 and CC-390.
OMB Control Number: 1250-0002.
Affected Public: Business or other for profit; individuals.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,618 respondents for the CC-390; 100 respondents for the CC-4.
Frequency: On occasion.
Number of Responses: 1,618 responses for the CC-390; 100 responses for the CC-4.
Estimated Average Time per Response: .25 hours for the CC-390; 1 hour for the CC-4.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 505 hours.
Total Estimated Annual Other Cost Burden: $1,797.
Catherine Eschbach,

Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Information Collection Activities; Comment Request

AGENCY:
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.

ACTION:
Notice of information collection; request for comment.

SUMMARY:
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey.” A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the Addresses section of this notice.

DATES:
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the Addresses section of this notice on or before September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Send comments to Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, by email to BLS_PRA_Public@bls.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See Addresses section.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) collects data on job vacancies, labor hires, and labor separations. As the monthly JOLTS time series grow longer, their value in assessing the business cycle, the difficulty that employers have in hiring workers, and the extent of the mismatch between the unused supply of available workers and the unmet demand for labor by employers will increase. The study of the complex relationship between job openings and unemployment is of particular interest to researchers. While these two measures are expected to move in opposite directions over the course of the business cycle, their relative levels and movements depend on the efficiency of the labor market in matching workers and jobs.
Along with the job openings rate, trends in hires and separations may broadly identify which aggregate industries face the tightest labor markets. The quits rate, the number of persons who quit during an entire month as a percentage of total employment, may provide clues about workers' views of the labor market or their success in finding better jobs. In addition, businesses will be able to compare their own turnover rates to the national, regional, and major industry division rates.
The BLS uses the JOLTS form to gather employment, job openings, hires, and total separations from business establishments. The information is collected once a month at two BLS Data Collection Centers (DCCs), located in Atlanta, Georgia and Kansas City, Missouri. The information is collected using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), web reporting, email, and FAX. An establishment is in the sample for 36 consecutive months.

II. Current Action
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS). The BLS is requesting an extension to the existing clearance for the JOLTS. There are no major changes being made to the forms, procedures, data collection methodology, or other aspects of the survey. Increasing public interest in the JOLTS Survey has led to the addition of state estimates and has broadened incorporation of JOLTS data in economic analyses conducted by Federal, State, and major economic research organizations.

III. Desired Focus of Comments
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Title of Collection: Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey.
OMB Number: 1220-0170.
Type of Review: Extension.
Affected Public: Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal governments; Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Small businesses and organizations.
Affected public | Total respondents | Frequency | Total responses | Average time per response (minutes) | Estimated total burden
Private | 5,320 | Monthly | 63,840 | 10 | 10,640
State, Local, & Tribal Gov't | 835 | Monthly | 10,020 | 10 | 1,670
Federal Gov't | 291 | Monthly | 3,492 | 10 | 582
Totals | 6,446 | Monthly | 77,352 | 10 | 12,892
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Signed on June 30, 2025.
Eric Molina,

Chief, Division of Management Systems, Branch of Policy Analysis.
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Board of Directors and its Institutional Advancement, Finance, Audit and Delivery of Legal Services committees will hold their 2025 summer quarterly business meetings July 14-16, 2025. On Monday, July 14, the first meeting will begin at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time and will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda. On Tuesday, July 15, the first meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. ET, with the subsequent meetings commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Wednesday, July 16, the first meeting will begin at 8:15 a.m. Eastern Time and will continue until the conclusion of the Board's agenda.

PLACE:
LSC will conduct its July 14-16, 2025, meetings at the DoubleTree Suites by Hilton Hotel, Detroit Downtown-Fort Shelby, 525 W Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, MI 48226.
Public Observation: Unless otherwise noted herein, the Board and all committee meetings will be open to public observation. LSC will also livestream the meeting on its YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/@LegalServicesCorp.

STATUS:
Open, except as noted below.
Institutional Advancement Committee and Communications Subcommittee —Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, the meeting may be closed to the public to consider and act on a Motion to Approve Leaders Council and merging Council Invitees.
Finance Committee —Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, the meeting may be closed to the public to receive Report on Year-End Projection for Fiscal Year 2025 and Budget Scenario Planning for Fiscal Year 2026.
Audit Committee —Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, the meeting may be closed to the public to receive a briefing by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement on active enforcement matter(s); follow up on open investigation referrals from the Office of Inspector General; and receive briefings by LSC Management regarding significant grantee oversight activities.
Board of Directors —Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, a portion of the meeting may be closed to the public to receive briefings from Management and the Inspector General; to consider and act on the General Counsel's report on potential and pending litigation and spending on outside legal counsel; and consider and act on list of Prospective Leaders Council and Emerging Council invitees.
Any portion of the closed session consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term “meeting” and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session. ^1
^1 5 U.S.C. 552b(a)(2) and (b). See also 45 CFR 1622.2 & 1622.3.
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed sessions of the Institutional Advancement, Finance, Audit, and the Board of Directors meetings. The transcript of any portions of the closed sessions falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), (7), (9) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Meeting Schedule

Monday, July 14, 2025

Start Time 2:30 p.m. ET

Institutional Advancement Committee

Open to the Public
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of Minutes of the Institutional Advancement Committee's Open Session Meeting on April 6, 2025
3. Update on Leaders Council and Emerging Leaders Council
4. Development Report
5. Consider and Act on Other Business
6. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Open Session Meeting and Proceed to a Closed Session

Portions Closed to the Public
1. Approval of Minutes of the Institutional Advancement Committee's Closed Session Meeting on April 6, 2025
2. Consider and Act on Motion to Approve Leaders Council and Emerging Leaders Council Invitees
3. Consider and Act on Other Business
4. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Meeting

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Start Time 9:00 a.m. ET

Finance Committee

Open to the Public
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Finance Committee's Open Session Meeting on April 7, 2025
3. Approval of the Minutes of the Finance Committee's Open Session Meeting on June 9, 2025
4. Approval of the Minutes of the Combined Audit & Finance Committees' Open Session Meeting on April 7, 2025
5. Report on Fiscal Year 2026 Appropriation and FY 2027 Appropriations Process
6. Consider and Act on Other Business
7. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Open Session Meeting and Proceed to a Closed Session

Closed to the Public
8. Approval of the Minutes of the Finance Committee's Closed Session Meeting on April 7, 2025
9. Approval of the Minutes of the Combined Audit & Finance Committees' Closed Session Meeting on April 7, 2025
10. Report on Year-End Projection for Fiscal Year 2025 and Budget Scenario Planning for Fiscal Year 2026
11. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Closed Session Meeting and Resume the Open Session Meeting

Open to the Public
12. Consider and Act on Resolution #2025-XXX: Temporary Operating Authority for Fiscal Year 2026
13. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Meeting

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Start Time 11:15 a.m. ET

Audit Committee

Open to the Public
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Committee's Open Session Meeting on April 6, 2025
3. Approval of the Minutes of the Combined Audit and Finance Committees' Open Session Meeting on April 6, 2025
4. Review of the 2024 403(b) Draft Audited Financial Statements
5. Briefing by the Office of Inspector General, to include:
a. Update on key activities and accomplishments over the last quarter, and overview of plans and key priorities for the next quarter,
b. Highlights of audit insights, recently completed work, ongoing work, and planned work for the next quarter,
c. Highlights of investigative insights, recently completed work, ongoing work, and planned oversight work for the next quarter, and
d. Discuss any Committee questions/concerns related to the OIG's Semi-Annual Report for the Period October 1-March 30.
6. Management Update Regarding Risk Management
7. Update on Chief Financial Officer Bootcamp
8. Briefing about Follow-up by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement on Referrals by the Office of Inspector General Regarding Audit Reports and Annual Financial Statement Audits of Grantees
9. Consider and Act on Other Business
10. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Open Session Meeting and Proceed to a Closed Session Meeting

Portions Closed to the Public
11. Approval of the Minutes of the Committee's Closed Session Meeting on April 6, 2025
12. Approval of the Minutes of the Combined Audit and Finance Committees' Closed Session Meeting on April 6, 2025
13. Briefing by Office of Compliance and Enforcement on Active Enforcement Matters and Follow-Up on Open Investigation Referrals from the Office of Inspector General
14. As Needed Briefing by LSC Management Regarding Significant Grantee Oversight Activities
15. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Meeting

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Start Time 1:30 p.m. ET

Delivery of Legal Services

Open to the Public
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of Minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting on April 6, 2025
3. Update on Performance Criteria Areas 1 and 3
4. Annual review of 2024 Grant Activity Report Data
5. Comments from Client Leadership Council
6. Consider and Act on Other Business
7. Consider and Act on a Motion to Adjourn the Meeting

Wednesday, July 16, 2025

Start Time 8:15 a.m. ET

Board of Directors

Open to the Public
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes of the Board's Open Session Meeting on April 7, 2025
4. Consider and Act on Resolution #2025-XXX: Approving the Minnesota Charitable Organization Annual Report Form
5. Chairman's Report
6. Members' Reports
7. President's Report
8. Update on LSC's Eviction Study
9. Inspector General's Report
10. Consider and Act on the Report of the Operations and Regulations Committee
11. Consider and Act on the Report of the Governance and Performance Committee
12. Consider and Act on the Report of the Institutional Advancement Committee and Communications Subcommittee
a. Consider and Act on Resolution #2025-XXX: In Recognition of Carl Rauscher
13. Consider and Act on the Report of the Delivery of Legal Services Committee
14. Consider and Act on the Report of the Audit Committee
15. Consider and Act on the Report of the Finance Committee
a. Consider and Act on Resolution #2025-XXX: Adopting LSC's Appropriation Request for Fiscal Year 2027
b. Consider and Act on Resolution #2025-XXX: Temporary Operating Authority for Fiscal Year 2026
16. Consider and Act on Other Business
17. Consider and Act on Whether to Authorize a Closed Session of the Board to Address Items Listed Below

Portions Closed to the Public
1. Approval of the Minutes of the Board's Closed Session Meeting on April 7, 2025
2. Management Briefing
3. Inspector General's Briefing
4. General Counsel's Report on Potential and Pending Litigation and Spending on Outside Legal Counsel
5. Consider and Act on List of Prospective Leaders Council and Emerging Council Invitees
6. Consider and Act on Motion to Adjourn the Meeting

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Jessica Wechter, Special Assistant to the President, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may also be sent by electronic mail to updates@lsc.gov.
Non-Confidential Meeting Materials: Non-confidential meeting materials will be made available in electronic format at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the LSC website, at https:// www.lsc.gov/about-lsc/board-meeting-materials.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)
Dated: July 2, 2025.
Stefanie Davis,

Deputy General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Office of Government Information Services
[NARA-2025-029]
Office of Government Information Services Annual Meeting

AGENCY:
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

ACTION:
Notice of annual open meeting.

SUMMARY:
We are announcing OGIS's annual meeting, open to the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss OGIS's reviews and reports, and allow interested people to appear and present oral or written statements.

DATES:
The meeting will be held on July 23, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon ET. You must register to attend. (See registration information below.)

ADDRESSES:
This meeting will be a virtual meeting. We will send access instructions for the meeting to those who register according to the instructions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martha Murphy by email at ogisopenmeeting@nara.gov or by telephone at 202.741.5770.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This meeting is open to the public in accordance with FOIA provisions at 5 U.S.C. 552(h)(6). OGIS's 2025 Report for Fiscal Year 2024, posted at https://www.archives.gov/ogis/about-ogis/annual-reports/ogis-2025-annual-report-for-fy-2024, summarizes OGIS's work in accordance with FOIA provisions at 5 U.S.C. 552(h)(4)(A). You may submit written statements by using OGIS's Public Comments Form, available at https://www.archives.gov/ogis/public-comments. If you are interested in presenting oral statements at the meeting you must register in advance via the Zoom for Government link below. Each individual will be limited to three minutes each. We will not address individual OGIS cases or specific FOIA requests.
Procedures: This virtual meeting is open to the public. If you are making oral comments at the meeting you must register via Zoom for Government: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_sasiSKiWQdiS15kUVaeNrw. To request accommodations ( e.g., a transcript), email ogis@nara.gov or call 202.741.5770. Members of the media who wish to register, those who are unable to register online, and those who require special accommodations, should contact Martha Murphy (contact information listed above).
Alina M. Semo,

Office of Government Information Services Director.
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
Chartering and Field of Membership—Public Hearing; Community Charter Application for Area With a Population of 2.5 Million or More

AGENCY:
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION:
Notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY:
The NCUA will hold a public hearing on a request from Dade County Federal Credit Union, submitted on September 19, 2024, seeking to expand its existing community charter. The Census Bureau estimates the proposed community's population is 6,263,813 people. This public hearing is being held pursuant to the NCUA's Chartering and Field of Membership Manual, and the agency is requesting comments from interested stakeholders regarding whether the area qualifies as a well-defined local community.

DATES:
The public hearing will be held on September 23, 2025, at 1 p.m. Eastern. Interested parties seeking to make presentations during the hearing must register by August 26, 2025, to be placed on a list of presenters. The applicant along with no more than seven other interested parties may request to make presentations. The first six interested parties that contact the NCUA in writing will be permitted to make such presentations. Members of the public seeking to watch or listen to the virtual meeting must register to view the public hearing. The agency will not reimburse any travel expenses for interested parties making presentations, or members of the public attending the meeting. Written comments must be submitted by August 26, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
The meeting will be held virtually via WebEx.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For public hearing process issues: Marcia Sigal, Acting Director; Rita Woods, Division Director of Consumer Access; or Christine Chase, Consumer Access Analyst, Office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion (CURE), at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, or telephone (703) 518-1150. For legal issues: Ian Marenna, Associate General Counsel for Regulations and Legislation, Office of General Counsel at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The NCUA's Chartering and Field of Membership Manual provides that for an applicant seeking a community charter for an area with multiple political jurisdictions with a population of 2.5 million people or more, the Office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion (CURE) shall do the following: (1) publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking comment from interested parties about the proposed community and (2) conduct a public hearing about this application. ^1 The preamble to the June 28, 2018, final rule, that established the public hearing process, sets forth the procedures that will govern such hearings. ^2 The procedures are described in the following section of this notice.
^1 12 CFR part 701, Appendix B, Chapter 2 Section V.A.2.
^2 83 FR 30289 (June 28, 2018). In particular, see the preamble discussion on 83 FR 30289, 30293.
Public Hearing Procedures: The NCUA will appoint a presiding officer to oversee and conduct the public hearing. The presiding officer will have the authority and discretion to ensure that the meeting proceeds in a fair and orderly manner. The NCUA will transcribe the meeting, which will provide an administrative record to allow the agency to consider comments presented at the hearing along with those submitted in writing.
The public hearing will last no more than four hours with interested parties making presentations of no more than 30 minutes each. Only eight parties may make a presentation, which includes the applicant and seven other interested parties. The first six parties in addition to the applicant that contact the NCUA in writing will be permitted to make such presentations. CURE will reserve the remaining slot, which it has the discretion to designate as eligible for a presentation by an interested party. In addition to the presentations, interested parties may submit written statements to CURE.
The NCUA will make a determination on the application no sooner than 30 calendar days after the date of the public hearing.
Request to Present: Parties requesting to make a presentation at the public hearing must submit their request via email:
To: dcamail@ncua.gov
Subject: Request to Present at NCUA's Public Hearing for Dade County Federal Credit Union
Within the body of the email, please include the following information:
1. The name, city and state, telephone number, organization (if applicable), and email address of the presenter;
2. A brief statement of the nature of the expected presentation (including whether the presenter will support, oppose, or neither support nor oppose the proposed application); and
3. The identification of any special or accessibility needs, such as sign language translation services.
NCUA will confirm the first six requests to present at the public hearing. A presenter must submit a written copy of its presentation to the NCUA by August 26, 2025.
Written Statements: Parties providing written statements must submit their statements via email or at the NCUA Public Hearings for Certain Proposed Community Charter Actions website. ^3
^3 https://ncua.gov/support-services/credit-union-resources-expansion/starting-new-federal-credit-union/chartering-field-membership-and-conversion-resources/public-hearings-certain-proposed-community-charter-actions.
If submitting via email, please use the following format:
To: dcamail@ncua.gov
Subject: Submission of Written Statement for Dade County Federal Credit Union Community Charter Application Request
Written comments must be submitted by August 26, 2025.
Application Request: The information below pertains to the credit union's proposed community charter application request. The narrative the applicant submitted in support of their position the area qualifies as a well-defined local community is also available for review within the Regulations.gov docket for this notice of public hearing.
Credit Union's Name: Dade County Federal Credit Union.
Credit Union's Location: Sweetwater, Florida.
Actual Members: 105,485 members as of December 31, 2024.
Population of Proposed Community: 6,263,813 (2023 5-yr ACS estimate).
Existing Field of Membership: Persons who live, work, worship, attend school, participate in programs to alleviate poverty or distress, or participate in associations headquartered in; and businesses and other legal entities, incorporated and unincorporated organizations located in, or maintaining a facility located in Broward or Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Description of Proposed Community: Persons who live, work, worship, attend school, participate in programs to alleviate poverty or distress, or participate in associations headquartered in; and businesses and other legal entities, incorporated and unincorporated organizations located in, or maintaining a facility located in Broward, Monroe, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County Florida.
Reason for Seeking Proposed Community: Dade County FCU is pursuing the proposed community to broaden access to consumer products and services particularly for the low-income residents.
All submitted comments and presentation requests, including attachments and exhibits, will become part of the NCUA's administrative record for that proposed narrative community application. Accordingly, these materials will be available to the public. Submissions should not include personal identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.
Accessibility Statement: These meetings will be open to the public virtually using a WebEx platform. ^4
^4 https://help.webex.com/en-us/article/nrbgeodb/Join-a-Webex-meeting.
By the NCUA Board, this 1st day of July 2025.
Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,

Secretary of the Board.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2025-0001]
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:
Weeks of July 7, 14, 21, 28, and August 4, 11, 2025. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.

PLACE:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format ( e.g., braille, large print), please notify Anne Silk, NRC Disability Program Specialist, at 301-287-0745, by videophone at 240-428-3217, or by email at Anne.Silk@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

STATUS:
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at Betty.Thweatt@nrc.gov or Samantha.Miklaszewski@nrc.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of July 7, 2025
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 7, 2025.

Week of July 14, 2025—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 14, 2025.

Week of July 21, 2025—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 21, 2025.

Week of July 28, 2025—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 28, 2025.

Week of August 4, 2025—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 4, 2025.

Week of August 11, 2025—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 11, 2025.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Chris Markley at 301-415-6293 or via email at Christopher.Markley@nrc.gov.
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Dated: July 2, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Monika Coflin,

Technical Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Investment Company Act Release No. 35663; 812-15720]
Lord Abbett Credit Opportunities Fund, et al.
July 1, 2025.

AGENCY:
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).

ACTION:
Notice.
Notice of an application under sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act.

Summary of Application:
Applicants request an order under sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3) of the Act for an exemption from certain provisions of rule 23c-3 to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to make repurchase offers on a monthly basis in an amount no less than 2% of the common shares outstanding, but in no event for an amount less than 5% or more than 25% of such shares during any three-month period.

Applicants:
Lord Abbett Credit Opportunities Fund, Lord Abbett Flexible Income Fund, Lord Abbett Municipal Opportunities Fund, Lord Abbett Corporate Opportunities Fund, Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC, Lord Abbett FIF Advisor LLC, and Lord Abbett Distributor LLC.

Filing Dates:
The application was filed on March 12, 2025 and amended on May 14, 2025.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:
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 Secretarys-Office@sec.gov and serving the Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 28, 2025, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at Secretarys-Office@sec.gov.

ADDRESSES:
The Commission: Secretarys-Office@sec.gov. Applicants: Randolph A. Stuzin, Vice President and Assistant Secretary, 30 Hudson Street, Jersey City, NJ 07302; and Brooke A. Fapohunda, Vice President, Assistant Secretary and Chief Legal Officer, 30 Hudson Street, Jersey City, NJ 07302.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kyle R. Ahlgren, Branch Chief, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' 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 https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html. You may also call the SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy at (202) 551-8090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-103363; File No. SR-MX2-2025-01]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; MX2 LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules To Govern the Trading of Options on the Exchange for a New Facility Called MX2 Options
July 1, 2025.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), ^1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, ^2 notice is hereby given that on June 18, 2025, MX2 LLC (“MEMX” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
^1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
^2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to adopt rules to govern the trading of options on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
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.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
The Exchange is proposing to adopt a series of rules in connection with MX2 Options, which will be a facility of the Exchange. MX2 Options will operate an electronic trading system developed to trade options (the “System”) leveraging the Exchange's [sic] existing robust and resilient technology platform that it uses to operate MEMX Equities and MEMX Options. Much of the proposed functionality for MX2 Options is substantially similar to MEMX Options, thus, the Exchange proposes to adopt rules applicable to MX2 Options that are substantively identical or substantially similar to the approved rules of MEMX applicable to MEMX Options, with certain proposed changes or omissions that are described below.
The System will provide for the electronic display and execution of orders, as described below. All Exchange Members will be eligible to participate in MX2 Options provided that the Exchange specifically authorizes them to trade in the System. The System will provide a routing service for orders when marketable trading interest is not present on MX2 Options and will comply with all applicable securities laws and regulations and the obligations of the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan.

MX2 Options Members
Pursuant to the proposed rules in Chapter 17 (Participation on MX2 Options), the Exchange will authorize any Exchange Member who meets certain enumerated qualification requirements (any such Member, an “Options Member”) and any Options Member's Sponsored Participants to obtain access to, and transact business on, MX2 Options.
There will be two types of Options Members—Options Order Entry Firms (“OEFs”) and Options Market Makers. Options Market Makers, in turn, will be eligible to participate as Preferred Market Makers, Lead Market Makers and Market Makers. OEFs will be those Options Members representing orders as agent on MX2 Options or trading as principal on MX2 Options. Options Market Makers will be those Options Members registered with the Exchange as Options Market Makers pursuant to proposed Rule 22.2.
To become an Options Market Maker, an Options Member is required to register by filing a written application with the Exchange, and then may select class appointments to make markets in those classes. Pursuant to proposed Rule 22.2, the Exchange may appoint one Lead Market Maker (or “LMM”) per option class. Market Makers may select from among any option issues traded on the Exchange to request appointment as an LMM, subject to the approval of the Exchange. In considering the approval of the appointment of an LMM in each security, the Exchange will consider: the Market Maker's preference; the financial resources available to the Market Maker; the Market Maker's experience, expertise and past performance in making markets, including the Market Maker's performance in other securities; the Market Maker's operational capability; and the maintenance and enhancement of competition among Market Makers in each security in which they are registered, including pursuant to the performance standards set forth in proposed Rule 22.2(i).
Pursuant to proposed Rule 22.2(c), an unlimited number of Market Makers may be registered in each class unless the number of Market Makers registered to make a market in a particular option class should be limited whenever, in the Exchange's judgment, quotation system capacity in an option class or classes is not sufficient to support additional Market Makers in such class or classes. The Exchange will not restrict access in any particular option class until such time as the Exchange has submitted objective standards for restricting access to the SEC for its review and approval.
Options Market Makers will be required to electronically engage in a course of dealing reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. Among other things, an Options Market Maker would generally have to satisfy the following responsibilities and duties during trading: (1) maintain a continuous two-sided market in each of its appointed classes; (2) engage, to a reasonable degree under the existing circumstances, in dealings for its own accounts when there exists, or it is reasonably anticipated that there will exist, a lack of price continuity, a temporary disparity between the supply of (or demand for) a particular option contract, or a temporary distortion of the price relationships between option contracts of the same class; (3) compete with other Market Makers in its appointed classes; (4) enter a size of at least one contract for its best bid and its best offer; and (5) maintain minimum net capital in accordance with Commission and Exchange rules. The Exchange proposes to specify numerically the meaning of “continuous” with respect to maintaining continuous, two-sided quotes. For purposes of Rule 22.6, the Exchange will consider the continuous quoting requirement fulfilled if a Market Maker enters continuous bids and offers in 60% of the cumulative number of seconds, or such higher percentage as the Exchange may announce in advance, for which that Options Market Maker's appointed classes are open for trading, excluding any adjusted series, any intraday add-on series on the day during which such series are added for trading, any Quarterly Option Series, and any series with an expiration of greater than 270 days. ^3 Pursuant to proposed Rule 22.5(c), substantial or continued failure by an Options Market Maker to meet any of its obligations and duties will subject the Options Market Maker to disciplinary action, suspension, or revocation of the Options Market Maker's registration as such or its appointment in one or more of its appointed options classes.
^3 The Exchange notes that it also proposes to adopt provisions that exclude from the calculation of continuous quoting those times that an Options Market Maker is experiencing a technical failure or limitation, during a trading halt, suspension or pause in the underlying security, or when the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down state. See, e.g., proposed Rule 22.6(d)(2)-(3).
Options Market Makers receive certain benefits for carrying out their duties. For example, a Market Maker may be designated by the Exchange as a Lead Market Maker or may have orders directed to it in its capacity as a Preferred Market Maker, in each case receiving a priority advantage over other non-Customer orders to the extent applicable priority overlays have been implemented, as described below. In addition, a lender may extend credit to a broker-dealer without regard to the restrictions in Regulation T of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System if the credit is to be used to finance the broker-dealer's activities as a specialist or market maker on a national securities exchange. Thus, an Options Market Maker has a corresponding obligation to hold itself out as willing to buy and sell options for its own account on a regular or continuous basis to justify this favorable treatment. The Exchange notes that the proposed continuous quoting requirement under proposed Rule 22.6(d) is substantially identical to that of MEMX Options as well as other options exchanges, including Cboe EDGX Options (“EDGX Options”), Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx”), and Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”). ^4
^4 See MEMX Rule 22.6(d); EDGX Options Rule 22.6(d); Phlx Rule 1081(c) and ISE Rule 804(e).
Pursuant to proposed Rule 17.2(f), every Options Member shall at all times maintain membership in another registered options exchange that is not registered solely under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act ^5 or in FINRA. OEF's that transact business with Public Customers must at all times be members of FINRA. Pursuant to proposed Rule 17.2(g), (Requirements for Options Participation, Options Principal), every Options Member will be required to have at least one registered Options Principal who satisfies the criteria of that rule, including the satisfaction of a proper qualification examination. An OEF may only transact business with Public Customers if such Options Member also is an Options Member of another registered national securities exchange or association with which the Exchange has entered into an agreement under Rule 17d-2 under the Exchange Act ^6 pursuant to which such other exchange or association shall be the designated options examining authority for the OEF. The proposed rules relating to qualification and participation on MX2 Options as an Options Member (including as an OEF and an Options Market Maker) are substantively identical to the relevant rules of MEMX Options.
^5 15 U.S.C. 78f(g).
^6 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
As provided in proposed Rule 16.2, existing Exchange Rules applicable to the MX2 equities market contained in Chapters 1 through 15 of the Exchange Rules will apply to Options Members unless a specific Exchange Rule applicable to the MX2 Options market (proposed Chapters 16 through 29 of the Exchange Rules) governs or unless the context otherwise requires. Options Members can therefore provide sponsored access to the MX2 Options Exchange to a non-Member ( i.e., a Sponsored Participant) pursuant to Rule 11.3 of the Exchange Rules.

Definitions
The Exchange proposes to define a series of terms under proposed Rule 16.1 (Definitions), which are to be used in proposed Chapters 16 to 29 relating to the trading of options contracts on the Exchange. Each of the terms defined in proposed Rule 16.1 is identical to definitions included in MEMX Rule 16.1.
The definitions under proposed Rule 16.1 are as follows:
• ABBO. The term “ABBO” means the best bid(s) or offer(s) disseminated by other Eligible Exchanges (as defined in proposed Rule 27.1) and calculated by the Exchange based on market information the Exchange receives from OPRA.
• Aggregate Exercise Price. The term “aggregate exercise price” means the exercise price of an options contract multiplied by the number of units of the underlying security covered by the options contract.
• American-Style Option. The term “American-style option” means an options contract that, subject to the provisions of proposed Rule 23.1 (relating to the cutoff time for exercise instructions) and to the Rules of the Clearing Corporation, may be exercised at any time from its commencement time until its expiration.
• Associated Person and Person Associated with an Options Member. The terms “associated person” and “person associated with an Options Member” mean any partner, officer, director, or branch manager of an Options Member (or any person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions), any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with an Options Member or any employee of an Options Member.
• Bid. The term “bid” means a limit order to buy one or more options contracts.
• Board. The term “Board” means the Board of Directors of MX2 LLC.
• Call. The term “call” means an options contract under which the holder of the option has the right, in accordance with the terms of the option, to purchase from the Clearing Corporation the number of shares of the underlying security covered by the options contract.
• Capacity. The term “Capacity” means the capacity in which a User submits an order, which the User specifies by applying the corresponding code to the order according to the specifications for MX2 Options.
• Class of Options. The terms “class” or “class of options” mean all options contracts with the same unit of trading covering the same underlying security or index.
• Clearing Corporation and OCC. The terms “Clearing Corporation” and “OCC” mean The Options Clearing Corporation.
• Clearing Member. The term “Clearing Member” means an Options Member that is self-clearing or an Options Member that clears MX2 Options Transactions for other Members of MX2 Options.
• Closing Purchase Transaction. The term “closing purchase transaction” means a MX2 Options Transaction that reduces or eliminates a short position in an options contract.
• Closing Writing Transaction. The term “closing writing transaction” means a MX2 Options Transaction that reduces or eliminates a long position in an options contract.
• Covered Short Position. The term “covered short position” means (i) an options position where the obligation of the writer of a call option is secured by a “specific deposit” or an “escrow deposit” meeting the conditions of Rules 610(f) or 610(g), respectively, of the Rules of the Clearing Corporation, or the writer holds in the same account as the short position, on a share-for-share basis, a long position either in the underlying security or in an options contract of the same class of options where the exercise price of the options contract in such long position is equal to or less than the exercise price of the options contract in such short position; and (ii) an options position where the writer of a put option holds in the same account as the short position, on a share-for-share basis, a long position in an options contract of the same class of options where the exercise price of the options contract in such long position is equal to or greater than the exercise price of the options contract in such short position.
• Customer. The term “Customer” means a Public Customer or a broker-dealer.
• Customer Order. The term “Customer Order” means an agency order for the account of a Customer.
• Discretion. The term “discretion” means the authority of a broker or dealer to determine for a Customer the type of option, the class or series of options, the number of contracts, or whether options are to be bought or sold.
• European-Style Option. The term “European-style option” means an options contract that, subject to the provisions of proposed Rule 23.1 (relating to the cutoff time for exercise instructions) and to the Rules of the Clearing Corporation, can be exercised only on its expiration date.
• Exchange Act. The term “Exchange Act” means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or Rules thereunder.
• Exercise Price. The term “exercise price” means the specified price per unit at which the underlying security may be purchased or sold upon the exercise of an options contract.
• He, Him, and His. The terms “he,” “him” and “his” are deemed to refer to persons of female as well as male gender, and to include organizations, as well as individuals, when the context so requires.
• Index Option. The term “index option” means an options contract that is an option on a broad-based, narrow-based or micro narrow-based index of equity securities prices.
• Individual Equity Option. The term “individual equity option” means an options contract which is an option on an equity security.
• Long Position. The term “long position” means a person's interest as the holder of one or more options contracts.
• MX2 Exchange and Exchange. The terms “MX2 Exchange” and “Exchange” mean MX2 LLC.
• MX2 Exchange Rules and Exchange Rules. The terms “MX2 Exchange Rules” and “Exchange Rules” mean the rules of the Exchange, including those for equities and options.
• MX2 Options. The term “MX2 Options” means the MX2 LLC Options Market, an options trading facility of the Exchange under Section 3(a)(2) of the Exchange Act.
• MX2 Options Book. The term “MX2 Options Book” means the electronic book of options orders maintained by the Trading System.
• MX2 Options Transaction. The term “MX2 Options Transaction” means a transaction involving an options contract that is effected on or through MX2 Options or its facilities or systems.
• NBB, NBO, and NBBO. The term “NBB” means the national best bid, the term “NBO” means the national best offer, and the term “NBBO” means the national best bid or offer as calculated by MX2 Options based on market information received by MX2 Options from OPRA.
• Offer. The term “offer” means a limit order to sell one or more options contracts.
• OPRA. The term “OPRA” means the Options Price Reporting Authority.
• Opening Purchase Transaction. The term “opening purchase transaction” means a MX2 Options Transaction that creates or increases a long position in an options contract.
• Opening Writing Transaction. The term “opening writing transaction” means a MX2 Options Transaction that creates or increases a short position in an options contract.
• Options Contract. The term “options contract” means a put or a call issued, or subject to issuance by the Clearing Corporation pursuant to the Rules of the Clearing Corporation.
• Options Market Close and Market Close. The terms “options market close” and “market close” mean the time the Exchange specifies for the end of a trading session on the Exchange on that trading day.
• Options Market-Maker and Market-Maker. The terms “Options Market-Maker” and “Market Maker” mean an Options Member registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in options contracts traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and responsibilities specified in proposed Chapter 22.
• Options Market Open and Market Open. The terms “options market open” and “market open” mean the time the Exchange specifies for the beginning of a trading session on the Exchange on that trading day.
• Options Member. The term “Options Member” means a firm, or organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to proposed Chapter 17 for purposes of participating in options trading on MX2 Options as an “Options Order Entry Firm” or “Options Market Maker.”
• Options Member Agreement. The term “Options Member Agreement” means the agreement to be executed by Options Members to qualify to participate on MX2 Options.
• Options Order Entry Firm, Order Entry Firm, and OEF. The terms “Options Order Entry Firm” and “Order Entry Firm” or “OEF” mean those Options Members representing as agent Customer Orders on MX2 Options and those non-Market Maker Members conducting proprietary trading.
• Options Principal. The term “Options Principal” means a person engaged in the management and supervision of the Options Member's business pertaining to options contracts that has responsibility for the overall oversight of the Options Member's options related activities on the Exchange.
• Order. The term “order” means a firm commitment to buy or sell options contracts as defined in proposed Rule 21.1(c).
• Outstanding . The term “outstanding” means an options contract which has been issued by the Clearing Corporation and has neither been the subject of a closing writing transaction nor has reached its expiration date.
• Primary Market. The term “primary market” means, in the case of securities listed on Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”), the market that is identified as the listing market pursuant to Section X(d) of the approved national market system plan governing the trading of Nasdaq-listed securities, and, in the case of securities listed on another national securities exchange, the market that is identified as the listing market pursuant to Section XI of the Consolidated Tape Association Plan.
• Priority Customer and Priority Customer Order. The term “Priority Customer” means any person or entity that is not: (A) a broker or dealer in securities; or (B) a Professional. The term “Priority Customer Order” means an order for the account of a Priority Customer.
• Professional. The term “Professional” means any person or entity that (A) is not a broker or dealer in securities; and (B) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). All Professional orders shall be appropriately marked by Options Members.
• Protected Quotation. The term “Protected Quotation” has the meaning provided in proposed Rule 27.1. ^7
^7 As defined in proposed Rule 27.1, the term “Protected Quotation” refers to a Protected Bid or Protected Offer, and the terms “Protected Bid” and “Protected Offer” refer to a Bid or Offer in an options series, respectively, that: (A) is disseminated pursuant to the OPRA Plan; and (B) is the highest priced Bid or lowest priced Offer, respectively, displayed by an Eligible Exchange.
• Public Customer. The term “Public Customer” means a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities.
• Put. The term “put” means an options contract under which the holder of the option has the right, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the option and the Rules of the OCC, to sell to the Clearing Corporation the number of units of the underlying security covered by the options contract, at a price per unit equal to the exercise price, upon the timely exercise of such option.
• Quarterly Options Series. The term “Quarterly Options Series” means a series in an options class that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any business day and expires at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar quarter.
• Quote and Quotation. The terms “quote” and “quotation” mean a bid or offer entered by a Market Maker as a firm order that updates the Market Maker's previous bid or offer, if any.
• Responsible Person. The term “Responsible Person” means a U.S.-based officer, director, or management-level employee of an Options Member, who is registered with the Exchange as an Options Principal, responsible for the direct supervision and control of associated persons of that Options Member.
• Rules of MX2 Options. The term “Rules of MX2 Options” mean the rules contained in proposed Chapters 16 to 29 of the MX2 LLC Exchange Rules governing the trading of options on the Exchange.
• Rules of the Clearing Corporation and Rules of the OCC. The terms “Rules of the Clearing Corporation” and “Rules of the OCC” mean the Certificate of Incorporation, the By-Laws and the Rules of the Clearing Corporation, and all written interpretations thereof, as may be in effect from time to time.
• SEC and Commission. The terms “SEC” and “Commission” mean the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
• Series of Options. The terms “series” or “series of options” mean all options contracts of the same class that are the same type of options and have the same exercise price and expiration date.
• Short Position. The term “short position” means a person's interest as the writer of one or more options contracts.
• Short Term Option Series. The term “Short Term Option Series” means a series in an option class that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday that is a business day and that expires on the Monday, Wednesday or Friday of the next business week, or, in the case of a series that is listed on a Friday and expires on a Monday, is listed one business week and one business day prior to that expiration. If a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, respectively. For a series listed pursuant to this section for Monday expiration, if a Monday is not a business day, the series shall expire on the first business day immediately following that Monday.
• SRO. The term “SRO” means a self-regulatory organization as defined in Section 3(a)(26) of the Exchange Act.
• Trading System and System. The terms “Trading System” and “System” mean the automated trading system used by MX2 Options for the trading of options contracts.
• Type of Option. The term “type of option” means the classification of an options contract as either a put or a call.
• Uncovered. The term “uncovered” means a short position in an options contract that is not covered.
• Underlying Security. The term “underlying security” means the security that the Clearing Corporation shall be obligated to sell (in the case of a call option) or purchase (in the case of a put option) upon the valid exercise of an options contract.
• User. The term “User” means any Options Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3 (Access).

Execution System
The Exchange's options System will leverage the Exchange's current state-of-the-art technology, including its customer connectivity, messaging protocols, quotation and execution engine, order router, data feeds, and network infrastructure. This approach minimizes the technical effort required for existing Exchange Members to begin trading options on MX2 Options. As a result, MX2 Options will closely resemble the Exchange's affiliate, MEMX Options, but will differ in that MX2 Options will maintain a pro rata allocation model with execution priority dependent on the capacity of an order ( e.g., Customer or non-Customer) as well as status as a Lead Market Maker or Preferred Market Maker, as applicable. The proposed model for MX2 Options is similar to other options exchanges such as EDGX Options, NYSE American Options (“NYSE American”) and the MIAX Options Exchange (“MIAX”), which are sometimes referred to as “classic” exchanges.
Like the Exchange's [sic] system for MEMX Equities and Options, all trading interest entered into the System will be automatically executable. Orders entered into the System will be displayed anonymously. Thus, the System will offer anonymous trading, however, options trades are not currently anonymous through settlement. Accordingly, as set forth in proposed Rule 21.10, aggregated and individual transaction reports produced by the System will indicate the details of a User's transactions, including the contra party's executing firm ID (“EFID”), capacity, and clearing firm account number. ^8 The Exchange will become an exchange member of the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). The System will be linked to OCC for the Exchange to transmit locked-in trades for clearance and settlement.
^8 The Exchange shall also reveal a User's identity: (i) when a registered clearing agency ceases to act for a participant, or the User's clearing firm, and the registered clearing agency determines not to guarantee the settlement of the User's trades; and (ii) for regulatory purposes or to comply with an order of an arbitrator or court. See proposed Rule 21.10. The Exchange notes that proposed Rule 21.10 is identical to MEMX Rule 21.10.
Hours of Operation. As stated in proposed Rule 21.2, the MX2 Options System will begin accepting orders after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time pursuant to the market opening procedures described in proposed Rule 21.7. ^9 Orders and bids and offers shall be open and available until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time except for option contracts on Fund Shares, as defined in proposed Rule 19.3(i), option contracts on exchange-traded notes including Index-Linked Securities, as defined in proposed Rule 19.3(l), and option contracts on broad-based indexes, as defined in proposed Rule 29.1(j), which may close as of 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time. The proposed hours of operation on MX2 Options are the same as on MEMX Options.
^9 Specifically, Rule 21.7(a) states that the System shall open options, other than index options, for trading after the System's observation after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time of both: (i) the first transaction on the primary listing market in the security underlying the option, and (ii) the Limit Up-Limit Down price bands applicable to the security underlying the option as disseminated by the applicable Securities Information Processor (“SIP”). With respect to index options, the System shall open for trading after a time period (which the Exchange determines for all classes) following the System's observation after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time of the first disseminated index value for the index underlying an index option.
Units of Trading. As stated in proposed Rule 21.3, the unit of trading in each series of options traded on MX2 Options will be the unit of trading established for that series by the OCC pursuant to the rules of the OCC and the agreements of the Exchange with the OCC. The proposed determination of the unit of trading for a series of options traded on MX2 Options is the same as on MEMX Options pursuant to MEMX Rule 21.3.
Minimum Quotation and Trading Increments. As stated in proposed Rule 21.5(a), the Exchange is proposing to apply the following quotation increments: (1) if the options series is trading at less than $3.00, five (5) cents; (2) if the options series is trading at $3.00 or higher, ten (10) cents; and (3) if the options series is trading pursuant to the Penny Interval Program one (1) cent if the options series is trading at less than $3.00, five (5) cents if the options series is trading at $3.00 or higher, unless for QQQ, SPY, or IWM where the minimum quoting increment will be one (1) cent for all series. In addition, as stated in proposed Rule 21.5(b), the Exchange is proposing that the minimum trading increment for options contracts traded on MX2 Options will be one (1) cent for all series. The Exchange also proposes to offer trading of Mini Options, and that the minimum trading increment for Mini Options shall be the same as the minimum trading increment permitted for standard options on the same underlying security. ^{10} Such proposed minimum quotation and trading increments are the same as on MEMX Options pursuant to MEMX Rules 21.5(a), (b) and (c).
^{10} Per proposed Rule 21.5(c), the minimum trading increment for Mini Options shall be determined in accordance with Interpretations and Policies .07 to Rule 19.5.
Penny Interval Program. As set forth in proposed Rule 21.5(d), the Exchange is proposing to adopt a Penny Interval Program that is substantially similar to the penny programs of other exchanges, including MEMX Options, which includes minimum quoting requirements for option classes listed under the Penny Interval Program. However, eligibility for inclusion in the Penny Interval Program will be limited to those classes already operating under penny programs of other options exchanges at the time MX2 Options is launched. The list of option classes included in the Penny Interval Program will be announced by the Exchange via circular distributed to Options Members and published by the Exchange on its website.
Order Types and Handling Instructions. The System will make available to Users two Order Types (as defined in proposed Rule 21.1(d))—Limit Orders and Market Orders—as well as various other instructions and modifiers that can be appended to such orders. The characteristics and functionality of each Order Type is substantially similar to what is currently approved for use on MEMX Equities, MEMX Options, and on other options exchanges, including EDGX Options, except where described below. The Exchange notes that each of the proposed rules regarding the order types and order type instructions and modifiers is substantively identical to the applicable rule for a corresponding order type or order type instruction or modifier offered by MEMX Options with the exception of the proposed addition of Reserve Orders, which are not currently offered on MEMX Options. Proposed Rule 21.1(d) includes the following details with respect to Limit Orders and Market Orders:
• Limit Order. Limit Orders are orders (including bulk messages) to buy or sell an option at a specified price or better. A Limit Order is marketable when, for a Limit Order to buy, at the time it is entered into the System, the order is priced at the current inside offer or higher, or for a Limit Order to sell, at the time it is entered into the System, the order is priced at the current inside bid or lower.
• Market Order. Market Orders are orders to buy or sell at the best price available at the time of execution. Market Orders to buy or sell an option traded on MX2 Options will be rejected if they are received when the underlying security is subject to a “Limit State” or “Straddle State” as defined in the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the “Limit Up-Limit Down Plan”). Bulk messages may not be Market Orders.
The System will also make available to Users several additional instructions that can be designated on an order (“Handling Instructions”). A Handling Instruction applied to a bulk message applies to each bid and offer within that bulk message. The Handling Instructions available on MX2 Options are described in proposed Rule 21.1(e) and will include the following:
• Book Only. Book Only is an instruction that an order is to be ranked and executed on the Exchange pursuant to proposed Rule 21.8 (Order Display and Book Processing) or cancelled, as appropriate, without routing away to another options exchange. Users may designate bulk messages as Book Only as set forth in proposed Rule 21.1(l).
• Post Only. Post Only is an instruction that an order is to be ranked and executed on the Exchange pursuant to proposed Rule 21.8 (Order Display and Book Processing) or cancelled, as appropriate, without routing away to another options exchange except that the order will not remove liquidity from the MX2 Options Book. The System cancels or rejects a bid (offer) designated as Post Only with a price that locks or crosses the Exchange's best offer (bid). A Market Order cannot be designated as Post Only. Users may designate bulk messages as Post Only as set forth in proposed Rule 21.1(l).
• Intermarket Sweep Order (“ISO”). ISOs are orders that shall have the meaning provided in proposed Rule 27.1, which relates to intermarket trading. Such orders may be executed at one or multiple price levels in the System without regard to Protected Quotations at other options exchanges ( i.e., may trade through such quotations). The Exchange relies on the marking of an order as an ISO order when handling such order, and thus, it is the entering Options Member's responsibility, not the Exchange's responsibility, to comply with the requirements relating to ISOs. ISOs are not eligible for routing pursuant to proposed Rule 21.9. A Market Order cannot be designated as an Intermarket Sweep Order. Users may not designate bulk messages as ISOs.
• Reserve Orders. Reserve orders are limit orders that have both a portion of the quantity displayed (“Display Quantity”) and a reserve portion of the quantity (“Reserve Quantity”) not displayed. Both the Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity of the Reserve Order are available for potential execution against incoming orders. If the Display Quantity of a Reserve Order is fully executed, the System will, in accordance with the User's instruction, replenish the Display Quantity from the Reserve Quantity using either Random Replenishment or Fixed Replenishment, as directed by the User. Under either instruction, any order with a Reserve Quantity will be handled as a new order by the System and a new order identification number will be created each time a displayed quantity is replenished. The Exchange will obfuscate the unique order identification number on its data feeds for replenishment of an order with Reserve Quantity. If the remainder of an order is less than the replenishment amount, the Exchange will display the entire remainder of the order. A User must instruct the Exchange as to the quantity of the order to be initially displayed by the System (“Max Floor”) when entering an order with a Reserve Quantity, which is also used to determine the replenishment amount, as set forth below. Users may not designate bulk messages as Reserve Orders.
With respect to the replenishment instructions, if a User designates Random Replenishment, the replenishment quantities for the order are randomly determined by the System within a replenishment range established by the user, ( i.e., the range will be between the Max floor minus the replenishment value selected by the User and the Max Floor plus the replenishment value established by the User. Further, a User must select whether the Random Replenishment be immediate or to have the time interval of such replenishment randomly set by the Exchange. If the User selects a random time interval, the System will randomly replenish the User's displayed replenishment quantity at different time intervals ranging up to one (1) millisecond following each execution that triggers replenishment. The nondisplayed portion of an order subject to Random Replenishment will remain fully executable prior to the replenishment of a User's displayed quantity.
If the User selects Fixed Replenishment, the System will replenish the Display Quantity of the order to the Max Floor designated by the User. As noted above, the Exchange does not currently offer Reserve Orders on MEMX Options, however, the definition and functionality of Reserve Orders as proposed in MX2 Rule 21.1(e)(4) are substantively identical to that in MX2 Rule 11.6(k), as well as MEMX Rule 11.6(k), as Reserve Orders are provided on MEMX Equities. The Exchange notes that although Reserve Orders are not currently available on MEMX Options, they are available on multiple competing options exchanges, ^{11} and Reserve orders operate in the same manner on those exchanges, the only difference being that the Exchange offers the random time interval functionality as an option if Random Replenishment is selected. ^{12}
^{11} See., e.g., EDGX Options Rule 21.1(d)(1) and Nasdaq GEMX Options 3, Section 7(g).
^{12} The Exchange emphasizes that the random time interval functionality is currently offered on MEMX under Rule 11.6(k) and MX2 under Rule 11.6(k).
Time-in-Force Designations. Users entering orders into the System may designate such orders to remain in force and available for display and/or potential execution for varying periods of time. Unless cancelled earlier, once these time periods expire, the order (or the unexecuted portion thereof) is returned to the entering party. A Time-in-Force applied to a bulk message applies to each bid and offer within that bulk message. Unless otherwise specified in the Exchange Rules or the context indicates otherwise, the Exchange determines which of the following Times-in-Force are available on a class or system basis. The Time-in-Force designations available on MX2 Options are described in proposed Rule 21.1(g) and will include the following:
• Immediate Or Cancel (“IOC”). IOC means, for an order so designated, an order that is to be executed in whole or in part as soon as such order is received. The portion not so executed immediately on the Exchange or another options exchange is cancelled and is not posted to the MX2 Options Book. IOC orders that are not designated as Book Only and that cannot be executed in accordance with proposed Rule 21.8 on the System when reaching the Exchange will be eligible for routing away pursuant to proposed Rule 21.9. Users may designate bulk messages as IOC.
• Day. Day means, for an order so designated, an order to buy or sell which, if not executed expires at market close. Users may designate bulk messages as Day.
The Exchange notes that each of the proposed Time-in-Force designations available on MX2 Options is identical to the same Time-in-Force designation available on MEMX Options.
Member Match Trade Prevention Modifiers. As with MEMX Options, the Exchange will allow Users to use certain Match Trade Prevention (“MTP”) modifiers, which are described in proposed Rule 21.1(h). Any incoming order designated with an MTP modifier will be prevented from executing against a resting opposite side order also designated with an MTP modifier and originating from the same EFID, Exchange Member identifier, trading group identifier, or Exchange Sponsored Participant identifier. The Exchange will offer the following MTP modifiers: MTP Cancel Newest, described in proposed Rule 21.1(h)(1); MTP Cancel Oldest, described in proposed Rule 21.1(h)(2); and MTP Cancel Both, described in proposed Rule 21.1(h)(3).
Re-Pricing Mechanism. The Exchange, like MEMX Options, proposes to offer a re-pricing mechanism to Users to comply with the order protection and trade through restrictions of the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan. This re-pricing mechanism, described in proposed Rule 21.1(i), is referred to by the Exchange as Price Adjust and is identical to the Price Adjust mechanism offered by MEMX Options pursuant to MEMX Rule 21.1(i).
EFIDs. As proposed in Rule 21.1(j), the term “EFIDs” means Executing Firm IDs and shall refer to what the System uses to identify the User and the clearing number for the execution of orders and quotes submitted to the System with that EFID. A User may obtain one or more EFIDs from the Exchange (in a form and manner determined by the Exchange). The Exchange assigns an EFID to its Users. Each EFID corresponds to a single User and a single clearing number of a Clearing Member with the Clearing Corporation. A User may obtain multiple EFIDs, which may be for the same or different clearing numbers. A User is able (in a form and manner determined by the Exchange) to designate which of its EFIDs may be used for each of its ports. If a User submits an order or quote through a port with an EFID not enabled for that port, the System cancels or rejects the order or quote. The Exchange notes that its proposed Rule 21.1(j) is identical to MEMX Rule 21.1(j).
Ports and Bulk Messages. Proposed Rule 21.1(k) defines two types of ports: (1) a “physical port,” which provides a physical connection to the System and may provide access to multiple logical ports; and (2) a “logical port” or “application session,” which provides Users with the ability within the System to accomplish a specific function through a connection, such as order entry, data receipt, or access to information. The Exchange notes that each of the proposed types of ports available on MX2 Options is identical to the same types of ports on MEMX Options. The Exchange also proposes to offer bulk message functionality through the same logical ports as Users submit other messages to the Exchange, as MEMX Options does. Finally, the Exchange proposes to adopt the same bulk message functionality as is offered by MEMX Options. The term “bulk message” is proposed to mean a bid or offer included in a single electronic message a User submits with a Market Maker Capacity to the Exchange in which the User may enter, modify, or cancel up to an Exchange-specified number of bids and offers (which number the Exchange will announce via Exchange notice or publicly available technical specifications). The System handles a bulk message in the same manner as it handles an order or quote, unless the Exchange Rules specify otherwise. Users may submit bulk messages through a logical port, subject to the following: bulk messages must contain a Time-in-Force of Day or IOC; a Market Maker with an appointment in a class must designate a bulk message for that class as Post Only or Book Only, and a non-appointed Market Maker must designate a bulk message for that class as Post Only; the System cancels or rejects a Post Only bulk message bid (offer) with a price that locks or crosses the Exchange best offer (bid) or ABO (ABB); the System executes a Book Only bulk message bid (offer) that locks or crosses the ABO (ABB) against offers (bids) resting in the Book at prices the same as or better than the ABO (ABB) and then cancels the unexecuted portion of that bid (offer).
Cancel Back. The term “Cancel Back” is proposed to mean an instruction a User designates on an order (including bulk messages) to not be subject to the Price Adjust process pursuant to proposed Rule 21.1(i). The System cancels or rejects an order with a Cancel Back instruction (immediately at the time the System receives the order or upon return to the System after being routed away) if displaying the order on the Book would create a violation of proposed Rule 27.3, or if the order cannot otherwise be executed or displayed in the Book at its limit price. The System executes a Book Only—Cancel Back order against resting orders. The proposed definition of Cancel Back in proposed Rule 21.1(m) is identical to a Cancel Back Order defined in MEMX Rule 21.1(m).
Market Opening Procedures. As stated in proposed Rule 21.7, the System shall open options, other than index options, for trading after the System's observation after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time of both: (1) the first transaction on the primary listing market in the security underlying the option, and (2) the Limit Up-Limit Down price bands applicable to the security underlying the option as disseminated by the applicable Securities Information Processor (“SIP”). With respect to index options, the System shall open for trading after a time period (which the Exchange determines for all classes) following the System's observation after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time of the first disseminated index value for the index underlying an index option. Because the Exchange does not propose to adopt an opening cross or similar opening process, the opening trade that occurs on the Exchange will be a trade in the ordinary course of dealings on the Exchange. Accordingly, the System will ensure that the opening trade in an options series will not trade through a Protected Quotation at another options exchange, consistent with the general standard regarding trade throughs articulated in proposed Rule 21.6(e). The proposed market opening procedures are substantively identical to the market opening procedures for MEMX Options. Additionally, the Exchange proposes under Rule 21.7(c) that it may delay the commencement of trading in any class of options in the interests of a fair and orderly market. As stated in proposed Rule 21.6(c), orders received prior to the opening of the System will be cancelled. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to commence operations on MX2 Options with simplified procedures for when the System is open for trading because for a successful opening process to function, an exchange needs a critical mass of liquidity from market participants in order to price and execute opening transactions. In turn, as a new options exchange, MX2 Options does not know the amount of pre-opening interest it will have, and it will have to gain market share in order to accumulate such interest. MX2 Options will re-evaluate its opening procedures over time and may propose to add an opening process through a rule filing submitted to the Commission in the future.
Order Display/Matching System. The System will be based upon functionality currently approved for use in the Exchange's equities and MEMX Options trading systems. Specifically, the System will allow Users to enter Market Orders and priced Limit Orders to buy and sell MX2 Options-listed options. All orders (including bulk messages) will be designated for display (price and size) on an anonymous basis by the Exchange.
Routing. Pursuant to proposed Rule 21.9, the MX2 Options Exchange will support orders that are designated to be routed to the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”) as well as orders that will execute only within MX2 Options. Orders that are designated to execute at the NBBO will be routed to other options markets to be executed when the Exchange is not at the NBBO consistent with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan. Subject to the exceptions contained in proposed Rule 27.2(b), (Order Protection, Exceptions to Trade-Through Liability), the System will ensure that an order will not be executed at a price that trades through another options exchange. An order that is designated by an Options Member as routable will be routed in compliance with applicable trade-through restrictions. Any order entered with a price that would lock or cross a Protected Quotation that is not eligible for either routing or the price adjust process as defined in proposed Rule 21.1(i) will be cancelled. Bulk messages are not eligible for routing. These rules related to routing are substantively identical to those of MEMX Options.
Pursuant to proposed Rule 21.9(d), MX2 Options shall route orders in options via MEMX Execution Services LLC (“MEMX Execution Services”), which serves as the Outbound Router of the Exchange, as defined in Rule 2.11. The function of the Outbound Router will be to route orders in options listed and open for trading on MX2 Options to other options exchanges pursuant to the proposed rules of MX2 Options solely on behalf of MX2 Options. The Outbound Router is subject to regulation as a facility of the Exchange, including the requirement to file proposed rule changes under Section 19 of the Act. Use of MEMX Execution Services or Routing Services (as defined below) to route orders to other market centers is optional. In the event the Exchange is not able to provide order routing services through its affiliated broker-dealer, the Exchange will route orders to other options exchanges in conjunction with one or more routing brokers that are not affiliated with the Exchange (“Routing Services”). ^{13} Parties that do not desire to use MX2 Execution Services or other Routing Services provided by the Exchange must designate orders as not available for routing. ^{14}
^{13} See proposed Rule 21.9(e).
^{14} See proposed Rule 21.9(d).
In connection with the proposed rules regarding routing to away options exchanges, proposed Rule 21.9(f) provides that MEMX Execution Services has, pursuant to Rule 15c3-5 under the Act, ^{15} implemented certain tests designed to mitigate the financial and regulatory risks associated with providing the Exchange's Users with access to such away options exchanges. Pursuant to the policies and procedures developed by MEMX Execution Services to comply with Rule 15c3-5, if an order or series of orders are deemed to be erroneous or duplicative, would cause the entering User's credit exposure to exceed a preset credit threshold, or are non-compliant with applicable pre-trade regulatory requirements (as defined in Rule 15c3-5), MEMX Execution Services will reject such orders prior to routing and/or seek to cancel any orders that have been routed. This is consistent with the routing implementation of other options exchanges, and the Exchange notes that proposed Rule 21.9(f) is substantively identical to MEMX Rule 21.9(f).
^{15} 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
Order Priority. Upon opening, trades on the Exchange will occur when a buy order and a sell order match on the Exchange's order book. The system shall execute trading interest within the System in price priority, meaning it will execute all trading interest at the best price level within the System before executing trading interest at the next best price. Pursuant to proposed Rule 21.8(c), after considering price priority, all orders are matched according to pro-rata priority according to size. In addition, Customer, Lead Market Maker and/or Preferred Market Maker priority overlays are also available at the Exchange's discretion on a class-by-class basis pursuant to proposed Rule 21.8(d). The Exchange will issue a notice to Options Members which will specify which classes of options are initially subject to these additional priority overlays and will provide such Options Members with reasonable advance notice of any changes to the application of such overlays.
Specifically, (i) the Customer Overlay provides Customers with priority over all non-Customer interest at the same price, and if there are two or more Customer orders for the same options series at the same price, priority is afforded to the Customer orders in the sequence in which they were received by the System; ^{16} (ii) the Preferred Market Maker overlay (which may only be in effect if the Customer Overlay is also in effect and shall only apply to any remaining balance after Priority Customer Orders have been satisfied provides the Preferred Market Maker with priority over other Market Makers for a certain percentage of contracts allocated at the same price (60% or 40% depending upon the number of other Market Makers at the NBBO); ^{17} and (iii) the Lead Market Maker overlay (which may only be in effect if the Customer Overlay is also in effect and shall only apply to any remaining balance after Priority Customer Orders have been satisfied) provides Lead Market Makers with priority over other Market Makers for a certain percentage of contracts allocated at the same price (60% or 40% depending upon the number of other Market Makers at the NBBO) ^{18} and for small size orders. ^{19}
^{16} See proposed Rule 21.8(d)(1).
^{17} See proposed Rule 21.8(f)(1), which states: For each incoming order, if the PMM has a priority quote at the NBBO, its participation entitlement is equal to the greater of (i) the proportion of the total size at the best price represented by the size of its quote, or (ii) sixty percent (60%) of the contracts to be allocated if there is only one (1) other Market Maker quotation or non-Customer order at the NBBO and forty percent (40%) if there are two (2) or more other Market Maker quotes and/or non-Customer orders at the NBBO.
^{18} See proposed Rule 21.8(g)(1), which states: For each incoming order, if the LMM has a priority quote at the NBBO, its participation entitlement is equal to the greater of (i) the proportion of the total size at the best price represented by the size of its quote, or (ii) sixty percent (60%) of the contracts to be allocated if there is only one (1) other Market Maker quotation or non-Customer order at the NBBO and forty percent (40%) if there are two (2) or more other Market Maker quotes and/or non-Customer orders at the NBBO.
^{19} See proposed Rule 21.8(g)(2), which states: Small size orders will be allocated in full to the LMM if the LMM has a priority quote at the NBBO. The Exchange will review this provision quarterly and will maintain the small order size at a level that will not allow small size orders executed by LMMs to account for more than 40% of the volume executed on the Exchange. Small size orders are defined as incoming orders of five (5) or fewer contracts.
After executions resulting from the Priority Overlays described above, Orders and Quotes within the System for the accounts of non-Customers, including Professional Customers, have next priority. If there is more than one highest bid or more than one lowest offer in the Consolidated Book for the account of a non-Customer, then such bids or offers will be afforded priority on a “size pro rata” basis. ^{20}
^{20} See proposed Rule 21.8(e).
In allocating the participation entitlements set forth in proposed Rule 21.8(h) to the Preferred Market Maker and the Lead Market Maker, the following shall apply. ^{21} In a class of options where both the Lead Market Maker and the Preferred Market Maker participation entitlements are in effect and an Options Member has directed an order to a Preferred Market Maker: (A) if the Preferred Market Maker's priority quote is at the NBBO, the Preferred Market Maker's participation entitlement will supersede the Lead Market Maker's participation entitlements for an order directed to such Preferred Market Maker; (B) if the Preferred Market Maker's priority quote is not at the NBBO, the Lead Market Maker's participation entitlement will apply to that order, provided the Lead Market Maker's priority quote is at the NBBO; (C) if an order is preferred to the Lead Market Maker ( i.e. the Lead Market Maker is also the Preferred Market Maker), the Lead Market Maker receives the participation and/or small order entitlement, as applicable, provided the Lead Market Maker/Preferred Market Maker's priority quote is at the NBBO; and (D) neither the Preferred Market Maker's nor the Lead Market Maker's priority quote is at the NBBO then executed contracts will be allocated in accordance with the pro-rata allocation methodology as described in paragraphs 21.8(c) and 21.8(e) without regard to any participation entitlement. If an incoming order has not been preferred to a Preferred Market Maker by an Options Member, however, then the Lead Market Maker's participation entitlement will apply to that order, provided the Primary Market Maker's priority quote is at the NBBO. ^{22}
^{21} See proposed Rule 21.8(h)(1).
^{22} See proposed Rule 21.8(h)(2).
As proposed and as noted above, the participation entitlements of proposed Rule 21.8 shall not be in effect unless the Customer Overlay is also in effect and the participation entitlements shall only apply to any remaining balance after Customer orders have been satisfied. ^{23}
^{23} See proposed Rule 21.8(h)(3).
Pursuant to proposed Rule 21.8(h)(4), neither the Lead Market Maker nor the Preferred Market Maker may be allocated a total quantity greater than the quantity they are quoting at the execution price. If the Lead Market Maker's or the Preferred Market Maker's allocation of an order pursuant to its participation entitlement is greater than its pro-rata share of priority quotes at the best price at the time that the participation entitlement is granted, neither the Lead Market Maker nor the Preferred Market Maker shall receive any further allocation of that order.
In establishing the counterparties to a particular trade, the participation entitlements must first be counted against the Lead Market Maker's highest priority bids and offers or the Preferred Market Maker's highest priority bids or offers. ^{24}
^{24} See proposed Rule 21.8(h)(5).
The proposed participation entitlements only apply to the allocation of executions among competing Market Maker priority quotes existing on the MX2 Options Book at the time the order is received by the Exchange. No market participant is allocated any portion of an execution unless it has an existing interest at the execution price. Moreover, no market participant can execute a greater number of contracts than is associated with its interest at a given price. Accordingly, the Lead Market Maker and the Preferred Market Maker participation entitlements contained in the proposed Rule are not guarantees. ^{25}
^{25} See proposed Rule 21.8(h)(6).
The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 21.8 governing priority on the Exchange is consistent with other options exchanges that have similar market models, including EDGX Options and NYSE American. ^{26}
^{26} See, e.g., EDGX Options Rule 21.8; NYSE American Rule 964NY.
Data Feeds. The System will include proprietary data feeds which will display without attribution to Users' orders on both the bid and offer side of the market for price levels then within MX2 Options using the minimum price variation applicable to that security. These data feeds with include a depth of book quotation and execution feed, a top of book quotation and executions information feed, a DROP feed which offers information regarding the options trading activity of a specific User, and a historical options data feed. ^{27}
^{27} See proposed Rule 21.15(b)(1)-(4).
Risk Controls. The Exchange also proposes to offer to all Users of MX2 Options the ability to establish certain risk control parameters and limits that are intended to assist Users in managing their market risk. The proposed risk controls are set forth in proposed Rules 21.16 and 21.17 and are identical to those offered by MEMX Options pursuant to MEMX Rules 21.16 and 21.17. ^{28} The proposed risk controls are designed to offer Users protection from entering orders outside of certain size and price parameters, as well as certain standard or Exchange-established parameters based on order type and market conditions.
^{28} See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98730 (October 12, 2023) 88 FR 71898 (October 18, 2023) (SR-MEMX-2023-28) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 99700 (March 8, 2024) 89 FR 18689 (March 14, 2024) (SR-MEMX-2024-09) for details regarding the risk controls.
Under the proposed Risk Monitor Mechanism, Users may configure risk limits for various parameters, including number of contracts executed (“volume”), notional value of executions (“notional”), number of executions (“count”), number of contracts executed as a percentage of number of contracts outstanding within an Exchange-designated time period or during the trading day (“percentage”), and the number of times the limits on any of the foregoing parameters are reached (“risk trips”). The System will track each of the parameters within an underlying for an EFID (“underlying limit”), across all underlyings for an EFID (“EFID limit”), across all underlyings for a group of EFIDs (“EFID Group”) (“EFID Group limit”), and/or across a customized group of orders designated by the User (“Custom Group Limit”), over a User-established time period (“interval”) and on an absolute basis for a trading day (“absolute limits”).
When the System determines that a specified parameter has reached the User-defined risk limit, depending on the User's instructions and the applicable limit that has been reached, the Risk Monitor Mechanism either: (1) cancels or rejects such User's orders or quotes in all series of the applicable underlying(s) and cancels or rejects any additional orders or quotes from the User in the applicable underlying(s) until the counting program resets; or (2) suspends all of a User's resting orders or quotes in all series of the applicable underlying(s) and cancels or rejects any additional orders or quotes from the User in the applicable underlying(s) until the Exchange is instructed to reinstate such bids and offers. A User may also engage the Risk Monitor Mechanism to cancel resting bids and offers, as well as subsequent orders as set forth in proposed Rule 22.10 (“mass cancellation”) or to suspend all resting bids and offers until the Exchange is instructed to reinstate such bids and offers (“mass suspension”).
In addition to the Risk Monitor Mechanism functionality described above, the Exchange also proposes to offer additional price protection mechanisms and risk controls that relate to certain standard or Exchange-established parameters based on order type and market conditions, which are described in proposed Rule 21.17, as well as additional controls applicable to options activity, described in Rule 21.17, Interpretations and Policies .01. These controls include a Market Order NBBO Width Protection, Limit Order Fat Finger Check, Buy Order Put Check, Drill-Through Price Protection, Market Orders in No-Bid (Offer) Series control, Bulk Message Fat Finger Check, and Rejection of Bulk Message Updates, controls related to the maximum dollar amount for a single order and maximum number of contracts for a single order, controls related to the order types or modifiers that can be utilized as well as orders when the market is crossed, controls to restrict the options classes for which a User may enter orders to test symbols only, controls prohibiting the entry of duplicative orders, controls restricting the overall rate of order entry, and credit controls measuring both gross and net exposure that warn when approached and, when breached, prevent submission of either all new orders or Market Orders only. ^{29}
^{29} Id.
Proposed Rule 21.17, Interpretation and Policy .02 indicates that the Exchange will offer risk functionality that permits a user to: to (i) cancel all unexecuted orders and quotes in the MX2 Options Book, or (ii) block the entry of any new orders and quotes, or (iii) both cancel all unexecuted orders and quotes in the MX2 Options Book and block the entry of any new orders and quotes. In addition to (i), (ii), and (iii), the Exchange also offers (iv) risk functionality that automatically cancels a User's open orders and quotes to the extent the User loses its connection to the Exchange. Further, MX2 Options offers batch cancel functionality that permits a User to cancel any orders or quotes in any series of options by requesting the Exchange to affect such cancellation. A User initiating such a request may also request that the Exchange block new inbound orders in any series of options. The block will remain in effect until the User requests the Exchange remove the block. Finally, proposed Rule 21.17, Interpretation and Policy .03 indicates that the risk controls provided are meant to supplement, and not replace, the Member's or User's own internal systems, monitoring, and procedures related to risk management and are not designed for compliance with Rule 15c3-5 under the Exchange Act. Responsibility for compliance with all Exchange and SEC rules remains with the Member or User. ^{30}
^{30} Id.
One Second Exposure Period. Proposed Rule 22.11 would prohibit Options Members from executing as principal on MX2 Options orders they represent as agent unless (i) agency orders are first exposed on MX2 Options for at least one (1) second or (ii) the Options Member has been bidding or offering on MX2 Options for at least one (1) second prior to receiving an agency order that is executable against such bid or offer. As noted above, proposed Rule 22.11 would require Options Members to expose their customers' orders on the Exchange for at least one second under certain circumstances. During this one second exposure period, other Options Members will be able to enter orders to trade against the exposed order. In adopting a one-second order exposure period, the Exchange is proposing a requirement that is consistent with the Rules of other options exchanges, including MEMX Options. Thus, the exposure period will allow Options Members that are members of other options exchanges to comply with Rule 22.11 without programming separate time parameters into their systems for order entry or compliance purposes. The Exchange believes that market participants are sufficiently automated that a one second exposure period allows an adequate time for market participants to electronically respond to an order. Also, it is possible that market participants might wait until the end of the exposure period, no matter how long, before responding. Thus, the Exchange believes that any longer than one second would not further the protection of investors or market participants, but rather, would potentially increase market risk to investors and other market participants by creating a longer period of time for the exposed order to be subject to market risk.
The technology for the Exchange's trading system for MX2 Options will be the same technology currently used for MEMX Options, and the Exchange has had ample experience with that trading system to believe that one second is an adequate exposure period.

Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan Rules
The Exchange will participate in the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (the “Plan”) and therefore will be required to comply with the obligations of Participants under the Plan. The Plan essentially applies the Regulation NMS price-protection provisions to the options markets. Similar to Regulation NMS, the Plan requires the Plan Participants to adopt rules “reasonably designed to prevent Trade-Throughs”, while exempting ISOs from that prohibition. The Plan's definition of an ISO is essentially the same as under Regulation NMS. The remaining exceptions to the trade-through prohibition, discussed more specifically below, either track those under Regulation NMS or correspond to unique aspects of the options market, or both. The Exchange notes that the proposed rules in Chapter 27 (Options Order Protection and Locked and Crossed Markets Rules) are identical to the rules of MEMX Options, and as such, the Exchange is proposing to incorporate Chapter 27 of MEMX's rulebook by reference into Chapter 27 of the MX2 Rulebook. ^{31}
^{31} Specifically, the Exchange shall denote: “The rules contained in MEMX Chapter 27, as such rules may be in effect from time to time, are hereby incorporated by reference into this Chapter. Members must comply with MEMX Chapter 27 as if such rules were part of the Rules. Unless the context dictates otherwise, the following terms, or any variations of these terms, from MEMX Chapter 27 have the following meaning for purposes of this Chapter: “Exchange” means “MX2”; and “Member” ( i.e., MEMX Member) means “Member ( i.e., MX2 Member).” The Exchange will copy this language into the additional MEMX chapters it is proposing to incorporate by reference into MX2's rulebook, each as further described below.

Securities Traded on MX2 Options
General Listing Standards. The Exchange proposes to adopt listing standards for options traded on MX2 Options as described in Chapter 19 (Securities Traded on MX2 Options), as well as for index options as described in Chapter 29 (Index Rules), which are identical to the approved rules of MEMX Options. ^{32} The Exchange will join the Options Listings Procedures Plan and will list and trade options already listed on other options exchanges. The Exchange will gradually phase-in its trading of options, beginning with a selection of actively traded options. Given that these rules mirror MEMX completely, the Exchange is proposing to incorporate the rules of Chapter 19 and Chapter 29 by reference into Chapter 19 and 29 of MX2's rulebook.
^{32} See MEMX Rules, Chapters 19 and 29.

Conduct and Operational Rules for Options Members
The Exchange proposes to adopt rules for MX2 Options that are substantively identical to the rules of MEMX Options regarding: exercises and deliveries as described in Chapter 18 (Business Conduct); Chapter 23 (Exercises and Deliveries); records, reports and audits as described in Chapter 24 (Records, Reports and Audits); doing business with the public as described in Chapter 26 (Doing Business With the Public); and margin as described in Chapter 28 (Margin Requirements). Given that these rules mirror MEMX completely, the Exchange is proposing to incorporate each of the above chapters by reference into Chapters 18, 23, 24, 26 and 28 of MX2's rulebook. ^{33}
^{33} See MEMX Rules, Chapters 18, 23, 24, 26, and 28.

National Market System
MX2 Options will operate as a full and equal participant in the national market system for options trading established under Section 11A of the Exchange Act, ^{34} just as its equities market participates today. MX2 Options will become a member of the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”), the Options Linkage Authority (“OLA”), the Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority (“ORSA”), and the Options Listing Procedures Plan (“OLPP”).
^{34} 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
The Exchange expects to participate in those plans on the same terms currently applicable to current members of those plans. The Exchange has contacted the leadership of each options-related national market system plan to begin the membership process.

Regulation
The Exchange will leverage many of the structures it established to operate a national securities exchange in compliance with Section 6 of the Exchange Act. ^{35} As described in more detail below, there will be three elements of that regulation: (1) the Exchange will join the existing options industry agreements pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Exchange Act prior to commencing operations, ^{36} as it did with respect to equities; (2) the Exchange's Regulatory Services Agreement with FINRA will be amended as necessary prior to commencing operations and will govern many aspects of the regulation and discipline of Members that participate in options trading, just as it does for equities regulation; and (3) the Exchange will perform options listing regulation, as well as authorize Options Members to trade on MX2 Options, and conduct surveillance of options trading as it does today for equities.
^{35} 15 U.S.C. 78f.
^{36} 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
Section 17(d) of the Exchange Act and the related Exchange Act rules permit SROs to allocate certain regulatory responsibilities to avoid duplicative oversight and regulation. Under Exchange Act Rule 17d-1, ^{37} the SEC designates one SRO to be the Designated Examining Authority, or DEA, for each broker-dealer that is a member of more than one SRO. The DEA is responsible for the financial aspects of that broker-dealer's regulatory oversight. Because MX2 Options Members also must be members of at least one other SRO, the Exchange would generally not be designated as the DEA for any of its members.
^{37} 17 CFR 240.17d-1.
Exchange Act Rule 17d-2 ^{38} permits SROs to file with the Commission plans under which the SROs allocate among each other the responsibility to receive regulatory reports from, and examine and enforce compliance with specified provisions of the Exchange Act and rules thereunder and SRO rules by, firms that are members of more than one SRO (“common members”). If such a plan is declared effective by the Commission, an SRO that is a party to the plan is relieved of regulatory responsibility as to any common member for whom responsibility is allocated under the plan to another SRO.
^{38} 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
All of the options exchanges, FINRA, and NYSE have entered into the Options Sales Practices Agreement, a Rule 17d-2 agreement, and the Exchange intends to join this agreement prior to the commencement of operations for MX2 Options. Under this Agreement, the examining SROs will examine firms that are common members of the Exchange and the particular examining SRO for compliance with certain provisions of the Exchange Act, certain of the rules and regulations adopted thereunder, certain examining SRO rules, and certain proposed MX2 Options rules. In addition, the proposed MX2 Options rules contemplate participation in this Agreement by requiring that any Options Member also be a member of at least one of the examining SROs. The Exchange also intends enter into and seek Commission approval of a bilateral Rule 17d-2 agreement with FINRA prior to commencing of operations for MX2 Options. Additionally, all of the options exchanges and FINRA have entered into the Options-Related Market Surveillance Agreement, a Rule 17d-2 agreement, and the Exchange intends to join this agreement prior to the commencement of operations for MX2 Options.
For those regulatory responsibilities that fall outside the scope of any Rule 17d-2 agreements, the Exchange will retain full regulatory responsibility under the Exchange Act. However, the Exchange has entered into a Regulatory Services Agreement with FINRA, pursuant to which FINRA personnel operate as agents for the Exchange in performing certain of these functions. The Exchange and FINRA will continue to operate under the Regulatory Services Agreement that is currently in place but with modifications as necessary to accommodate the expanded scope of the relationship. The necessary modifications will be implemented prior to the commencement of operations of MX2 Options. As is the case with the Exchange's equities market, the Exchange will supervise FINRA and continue to bear ultimate regulatory responsibility for the MX2 Options Exchange.
Consistent with the Exchange's existing regulatory structure, the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer shall have general supervision of the regulatory operations of MX2 Options, including responsibility for overseeing the surveillance, examination, and enforcement functions and for administering all regulatory services agreements applicable to MX2 Options. Similarly, the Exchange's existing Regulatory Oversight Committee will be responsible for overseeing the adequacy and effectiveness of Exchange's regulatory and self-regulatory organization responsibilities, including those applicable to MX2 Options.
Finally, as it does with equities, the Exchange will perform automated surveillance of trading on MX2 Options for the purpose of maintaining a fair and orderly market at all times. As it does with its equities trading, the Exchange will monitor MX2 Options to identify unusual trading patterns and determine whether particular trading activity requires further regulatory investigation by FINRA.
In addition, the Exchange will oversee the process for determining and implementing trade halts, identifying and responding to unusual market conditions, and administering the Exchange's process for identifying and remediating “obvious errors” by and among its Options Members. The proposed rules in Chapter 20 (Regulation of Trading on MX2 Options) regarding halts, unusual market conditions, extraordinary market volatility, obvious errors, audit trail, transfers of positions, and off-exchange RWA transfers are substantively identical to the approved rules of MEMX Options.

Minor Rule Violation Plan
The Exchange's disciplinary rules, including Exchange Rules applicable to “minor rule violations,” are set forth in Chapter 8 of the Exchange's current Rules. Such disciplinary rules will apply to Options Members and their associated persons.
The Commission approved the Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan (“MRVP”) in 2020. ^{39} The Exchange's MRVP specifies those uncontested minor rule violations with sanctions not exceeding $2,500 that would not be subject to the provisions of Rule 19d-1(c)(1) under the Act ^{40} requiring that an SRO promptly file notice with the Commission of any final disciplinary action taken with respect to any person or organization. ^{41} The Exchange's MRVP includes the policies and procedures included in Exchange Rule 8.15 (Imposition of Fines for Minor Violation(s) of Rules) and in Exchange Rule 8.15, Interpretations and Policy .01.
^{39} See Release No. 34-89836 (September 11, 2020), 85 FR 58081 (September 17, 2020) (Order Declaring Effective a Minor Rule Violation Plan) (“MRVP Order”).
^{40} 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(1).
^{41} The Commission adopted amendments to paragraph (c) of Rule 19d-1 to allow SROs to submit for Commission approval plans for the abbreviated reporting of minor disciplinary infractions. See Release No. 34-21013 (June 1, 1984), 49 FR 23828 (June 8, 1984). Any disciplinary action taken by an SRO against any person for violation of a rule of the SRO which has been designated as a minor rule violation pursuant to such a plan filed with and declared effective by the Commission will not be considered “final” for purposes of Section 19(d)(1) of the Act if the sanction imposed consists of a fine not exceeding $2,500 and the sanctioned person has not sought an adjudication, including a hearing, or otherwise exhausted his administrative remedies.
The Exchange proposes to amend its MRVP and Exchange Rule 8.15, Interpretation and Policy .01 to include proposed Rule 25.3 (Penalty for Minor Rule Violations). ^{42} The rules included in proposed Rule 25.3 as appropriate for disposition under the Exchange's MRVP are: (a) position limit and exercise limit violations; (b) violations regarding the failure to accurately report position and account information; (c) Market Maker quoting obligations; (d) violations regarding expiring exercise declarations; (e) violations relating to the failure to respond to the Exchange's requests for the submission of trade data; and (f) violations relating to noncompliance with the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rule requirements. The rules included in proposed Rule 25.3 are the same as the rules included in the MRVPs of MEMX Options and other options exchanges. ^{43}
^{42} In its proposal to adopt the MRVP, the Exchange requested that, going forward, to the extent that there are any changes to the rules applicable to the Exchange's MRVP, the Exchange requests that the Commission deem such changes to be modifications to the Exchange's MRVP.
^{43} See MEMX Rule 25.3. See also, EDGX Options Rule 25.3 and Cboe BZX Options (“BZX Options”) Rule 25.3.
Upon implementation of this proposal, the Exchange will include the enumerated options trading rule violations in the Exchange's standard quarterly report of actions taken on minor rule violations under the MRVP. The quarterly report includes: the Exchange's internal file number for the case, the name of the individual and/or organization, the nature of the violation, the specific rule provision violated, the fine imposed, the number of times the rule violation has occurred, and the date of disposition. The Exchange's MRVP, as proposed to be amended, is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1), 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(6) of the Act, which require, in part, that an exchange have the capacity to enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline for, violations of the rules of the Commission and of the exchange. ^{44} In addition, because amended Rule 8.15 will offer procedural rights to a person sanctioned for a violation listed in proposed Rule 25.3, the Exchange will provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and associated persons, consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act. ^{45}
^{44} 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), 78f(b)(5) and 78f(b)(6).
^{45} 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
This proposal to include the rules listed in proposed Rule 25.3 in the Exchange's MRVP is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act, ^{46} because it should strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities as an SRO in cases where full disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in view of the minor nature of the particular violation. In requesting the proposed change to the MRVP, the Exchange in no way minimizes the importance of compliance with Exchange Rules and all other rules subject to the imposition of fines under the MRVP. However, the MRVP provides a reasonable means of addressing rule violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations. The Exchange will continue to conduct surveillance with due diligence and make a determination based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis, whether a fine of more or less than the recommended amount is appropriate for a violation under the MRVP or whether a violation requires a formal disciplinary action.
^{46} 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

Section 36 Exemption Request
The Exchange proposes to incorporate by reference as MX2 Options rules certain rules of the Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”), the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), FINRA, and as described above, its affiliated exchange, MEMX. Specifically, MX2 Options proposes to incorporate by reference the applicable rules of MEMX with respect to Chapter 18 (Business Conduct), Chapter 19 (Securities Traded on MX2 Options), Chapter 23 (Exercises and Deliveries), Chapter 24 (Records, Reports and Audits), Chapter 26 (Doing Business with the Public), Chapter 27 (Options Order Protection and Locked and Crossed Markets Rules), Chapter 28 (Margin Requirements) and Chapter 29 (Index Rules); ^{47} MX2 Options Rule 26.16 proposes to incorporate by reference the applicable rules of FINRA with respect to Communications with Public Customers; MX2 Options Rule 28.3 proposes to incorporate by reference initial and maintenance margin requirements of either Cboe or NYSE; MX2 Options Rule 29.5 proposes to incorporate by reference the applicable rules of Cboe with respect to position limits for broad based index options; and MX2 Options Rule 29.7 proposes to incorporate by reference the applicable rules of Cboe with respect to position limits for Narrow-Based and Micro-Narrow Based Index Options traded on MX2 Options and also on Cboe.
^{47} Each MEMX Chapter incorporated by reference into MX2's rules will have the same chapter numbers in MX2's rulebook.
Thus, for certain MX2 Options rules, Exchange members will comply with a MX2 Options rule by complying with the MEMX, Cboe, NYSE, or FINRA rule referenced. Using its authority under Section 36 of the Act, the Commission has previously exempted certain SROs from the requirement to file proposed rule changes under Section 19(b) of the Act when incorporating another SRO's rules by reference. ^{48} Each such exempt SRO has agreed to be governed by the incorporated rules, as amended from time to time, but, has not been required to file a separate proposed rule change with the Commission each time the SRO whose rules are incorporated by reference seeks to modify its rules. In addition, each SRO incorporated by reference only regulatory rules ( e.g., margin, suitability, arbitration), not trading rules, and incorporated by reference whole categories of rules ( i.e., did not “cherry-pick” certain individual rules within a category). Last, each exempt SRO had reasonable procedures in place to provide written notice to its members each time a change is proposed to the incorporated rules of another SRO in order to provide its members with notice of a proposed rule change that affects their interests, so that they would have an opportunity to comment on it.
^{48} See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49260 (February 17, 2004), 69 FR 8500 (February 24, 2004). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57478 (March 12, 2008), 73 FR 14521, 14539-40 (March 18, 2008) (order approving SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-NASDAQ-2007-080) and 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550, 3565-66 (January 23, 2006) (File No. 10-131) (approving The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC's exchange application).
In connection with this proposal, the Exchange respectfully requests, pursuant to Rule 240.0-12 under the Act, ^{49} an exemption under Section 36 of the Act from the rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Act for changes to those MX2 Options rules that are effected solely by virtue of a change to a cross-referenced MEMX, Cboe, NYSE, or FINRA rule. The Exchange proposes to incorporate by reference categories of rules (rather than individual rules within a category) that are not trading rules. The Exchange also agrees to provide written notice to Options Members prior to the launch of MX2 Options of the specific MEMX, Cboe, NYSE, and FINRA rules that it will incorporate by reference. In addition, the Exchange will notify Options Members whenever MEMX, Cboe, NYSE, or FINRA proposes a change to a cross-referenced MEMX, Cboe, NYSE, or FINRA rule. ^{50} For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that its request for exemptive relief is consistent with prior requests for, and provision of, similar exemptive relief.
^{49} 17 CFR 240.0-12.
^{50} The Exchange will provide such notice through a posting on the same website location where the Exchange will post its own rule filings pursuant to Rule 19b-4(l) under Act, within the time frame required by that rule. The website posting will include a link to the location on the MEMX, Cboe, NYSE, or FINRA website where the proposed rule change is posted.

Amendments to Existing Exchange Rules
In addition to the rules of MX2 Options proposed above, the Exchange proposes to amend certain of its existing Exchange Rules that currently apply to the Exchange's equities market in order to reflect the Exchange's proposed operation of MX2 Options.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (d) of Interpretations and Policies .01 to Rule 2.5 (Restrictions), which generally requires each Member to register at least two Principals with the Exchange subject to certain exceptions described therein, to provide that such paragraph (d) shall not apply to a Member that solely conducts business on the Exchange as an Options Member, however, Options Members must comply with the registration requirements set forth in proposed Rule 17.2(g). The Exchange notes that proposed Rule 17.2(g), which provides that every Options Member shall have at least one Options Principal and sets forth the Exchange's Options Principal registration requirements, is identical to MEMX Rule 17.2(g). In connection with this proposed change, the Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (i) of Interpretations and Policies .01 to Rule 2.5 to include Options Principal as a registration category and to set forth the Exchange's qualification requirements for an Options Principal, which are the same as those for an Options Principal on MEMX Options.
The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 2.11(a)(6), which states that MEMX Execution Services shall maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing positions that are the result of an execution or executions that are not clearly erroneous under Rule 11.15 and result from a technical or systems issue at MEMX Execution Services, the Exchange, a routing destination, or a non-affiliate third-party routing broker that affects one or more orders (“Error Positions”). The proposed change to Rule 2.11(a)(6) would add a reference to the comparable provision to that which governs review and resolution of clearly erroneous transactions ( e.g., for equities, Rule 11.15) but for options transactions, namely Rule 20.6, which governs review and resolution of options transactions that may qualify as obvious errors.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretations and Policies .01 Rule 8.15 (Imposition of Fines for Minor Violation(s) of Rules), which contains the list of Exchange Rule violations and recommended fine schedule pursuant to Rule 8.15, to include a new paragraph (i) referencing proposed Rule 25.3 for the recommended fines for minor rule violations of the Exchange Rules appliable to MX2 Options, which the Exchange notes are the same as those of MEMX Options.

2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act ^{51} in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act ^{52} in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
^{51} 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
^{52} 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
As described above, the fundamental premise of the proposal is that the Exchange will operate its options market much in a similar manner to its affiliated options exchange, MEMX Options, with the exception of the priority model and certain other limited differences. Those differences ( i.e. pro-rata priority model and the addition of Reserve orders), are not novel and are offered by other options exchanges. ^{53} Further, the proposed Reserve Orders on MX2 Options will operate in the same manner and have the same functionality as those currently offered on MEMX ^{54} and that have been approved under the Rules of MX2. ^{55} The Exchange believes MX2 Options will benefit individual investors, options trading firms, and the options market generally. The entry of an innovative, cost competitive market such as MX2 Options will promote competition, spurring existing exchanges to improve their own executions systems and reduce trading costs.
^{53} See supra notes 11 and 26.
^{54} See MEMX Rule 11.6(k).
^{55} See Exchange Rule 11.6(k).
The basis for a majority of the proposed rules of MX2 Options are the approved rules of MEMX Options, which have already been found consistent with the Exchange Act. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed order types and order type functionality raise any new or novel issues that have not been previously considered by the Commission.
The Exchange further believes that the functionality that it proposes to offer is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the System is designed to be efficient and its operation transparent, thereby facilitating transactions in securities, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and open national market system. As described above, the Exchange's proposed rules, including the proposed Order Types and Handling Instructions, opening procedures, routing services, and order matching process are designed to provide a simplified suite of conventional features and to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements, including the obligations of the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rules of MX2 Options, as well as the proposed method of monitoring for compliance with and enforcing such rules is also consistent with the Exchange Act, particularly Sections 6(b)(1), 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, which require, in part, that an exchange have the capacity to enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline for, violations of the rules of the Commission and of the exchange. The Exchange has proposed to adopt rules necessary to regulate Options Members that are nearly identical to the approved rules of MEMX Options other options exchanges, as described above. The Exchange proposes to regulate activity on MX2 Options in the same way it regulates activity on MEMX Options, specifically through various Exchange specific functions, an RSA with FINRA, as well as participation in industry plans, including plans pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Exchange Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in an intensely competitive global marketplace for transaction services. Relying on its array of services and benefits, the Exchange competes for the privilege of providing market services to broker-dealers. The Exchange's ability to compete in this environment is based in large part on the quality of its trading systems, the overall quality of its market and its attractiveness to the largest number of investors, as measured by speed, likelihood and cost of executions, as well as spreads, fairness, and transparency.
The Exchange notes that most U.S. options exchanges are owned and operated by companies that operate more than one options exchange. ^{56} The primary reason to operate multiple options exchanges, as is true with respect to the proposed launch of MX2 Options, is that it allows an exchange operator to offer multiple market models, including a price-time market and a pro rata market, often with Customer priority as a critical component of the latter. Accordingly, the proposed rule change is intended to enhance competition by allowing the Exchange to compete with existing options exchanges that operate models based on Customer priority and pro rata allocations.
^{56} NYSE operates two options exchanges, NYSE American and NYSE Arca; Nasdaq operates six options exchanges, ISE, Phlx, Nasdaq Options Market (“NOM”), Nasdaq MRX (“MRX”), Nasdaq BX Options (“BX”), and Nasdaq GEMX (“GEMX”), Cboe operates four options exchanges, Cboe Options, C2 Options Exchange (“C2”), EDGX Options and BZX Options; and MIAX operates four options exchanges, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, and MIAX Sapphire.
The proposed rule change will reduce the overall trading costs and increase price competition, both pro-competitive developments, and will promote further initiative and innovation among market centers and market participants.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments
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:

Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission's internet comment form ( https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov . Please include file number SR-MX2-2025-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-MX2-2025-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website ( https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-MX2-2025-01 and should be submitted on or before July 28, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. ^{57}
^{57} 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-103365; File No. 4-566]
Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective an Amendment to the Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., NYSE Texas, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., MEMX LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, NYSE National, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., Investors' Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc., and 24X National Exchange LLC Relating to the Surveillance, Investigation, and Enforcement of Insider Trading Rules
July 1, 2025.
Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has issued an Order, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), ^1 approving and declaring effective an amendment to the plan for allocating regulatory responsibility (“Plan”) filed on June 25, 2025, pursuant to Rule 17d-2 of the Act, ^2 by Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), NYSE Texas, Inc. (“NYSE Texas”), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), MEMX LLC (“MEMX”), MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX PEARL”), Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”), Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“PHLX”), The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National”), New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”), NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), Investors' Exchange LLC (“IEX”) Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. (“LTSE”), and 24X National Exchange LLC (“24X”) (collectively, “Participating Organizations” or “Parties”).
^1 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
^2 17 CFR 240.17d-2.

I. Introduction
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, ^3 among other things, requires every self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) registered as either a national securities exchange or national securities association to examine for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility pursuant to Section 17(d) ^4 or Section 19(g)(2) ^5 of the Act. Without this relief, the statutory obligation of each individual SRO could result in a pattern of multiple examinations of broker-dealers that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (“common members”). Such regulatory duplication would add unnecessary expenses for common members and their SROs.
^3 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
^4 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
^5 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2).
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act ^6 was intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication. ^7 With respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other specified regulatory functions.
^6 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
^7 See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act. ^8 Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority (“DEA”) to examine common members for compliance with the financial responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO rules. ^9 When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and trading activities and practices.
^8 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively.
^9 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20, 1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976).
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act. ^{10} Rule 17d-2 permits SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if, after providing for notice and comment, it determines that the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, to foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs, to remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market system and a national clearance and settlement system, and is in conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act. Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 relieves an SRO of those regulatory responsibilities allocated by the plan to another SRO.
^{10} See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28, 1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976).

II. The Plan
On September 12, 2008, the Commission declared effective the Participating Organizations' Plan for allocating regulatory responsibilities pursuant to Rule 17d-2. ^{11} The Plan is designed to eliminate regulatory duplication by allocating regulatory responsibility over Common FINRA Members ^{12} (collectively “Common Members”) for the surveillance, investigation, and enforcement of common insider trading rules (“Common Rules”). ^{13} The Plan assigns regulatory responsibility over Common FINRA Members to FINRA for surveillance, investigation, and enforcement of insider trading by broker-dealers, and their associated persons, with respect to Listed Stocks (as defined in the Plan), irrespective of the marketplace(s) maintained by the Participating Organizations on which the relevant trading may occur.
^{11} See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58536 (September 12, 2008), 73 FR 54646 (September 22, 2008). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58806 (October 17, 2008), 73 FR 63216 (October 23, 2008); 61919 (April 15, 2010), 75 FR 21051 (April 22, 2010); 63103 (October 14, 2010), 75 FR 64755 (October 20, 2010); 63750 (January 21, 2011), 76 FR 4948 (January 27, 2011); 65991 (December 16, 2011), 76 FR 79714 (December 22, 2011); 78473 (August 3, 2016), 81 FR 52722 (August 9, 2016); 84392 (October 10, 2018), 83 FR 52243 (October 16, 2018); 86542 (August 1, 2019), 84 FR 38679 (August 7, 2019); 88948 (May 26, 2020), 85 FR 33239 (June 1, 2020); and 89972 (September 23, 2020), 85 FR 61062 (September 29, 2020).
^{12} Common FINRA Members include members of FINRA and at least one of the Participating Organizations.
^{13} Common rules are defined as: (i) Federal securities laws and rules promulgated by the Commission pertaining to insider trading, and (ii) the rules of the Participating Organizations that are related to insider trading. See Exhibit A to the Plan.

III. Proposed Amendment to the Plan
On June 25, 2025, the Parties submitted a proposed amendment to the Plan. The proposed amendment was submitted to add 24X as a Participant to the Plan and to reflect the name change of NYSE Chicago, Inc. to NYSE Texas, Inc. The text of the proposed amended 17d-2 plan is as follows (additions are italicized ; deletions are [bracketed]):
* * * * *

Agreement for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibility of Surveillance, Investigation and Enforcement for Insider Trading Pursuant to § 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78q (d), and Rule 17d-2 Thereunder
This agreement (the “Agreement”) by and among Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), NYSE Texas [Chicago], Inc. (“ NYSE Texas [CHX]”), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), MEMX LLC (“MEMX”), MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX PEARL”), ^1 Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”), Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“PHLX”), The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National”), New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”), NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), Investors' Exchange LLC (“IEX”), [and] Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. (“LTSE”) and 24X National Exchange LLC (“24X”) (each a “Participating Organization” and together, the “Participating Organizations”), is made pursuant to § 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. 78q(d), and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 17d-2, which allow for plans to allocate regulatory responsibility among self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”). Upon approval by the SEC, this Agreement shall amend and restate the agreement among the Participating Organizations approved by the SEC on September 23, 2020 [May 26, 2020].
^1 MIAX PEARL's allocation of certain regulatory responsibilities to FINRA under this Agreement is limited to the activites of MIAX PEARL Equities, a facility of MIAX PEARL.
Whereas, the Participating Organizations desire to: (a) foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs; (b) remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market system; (c) strive to protect the interest of investors; and (d) eliminate duplication in their regulatory surveillance, investigation and enforcement of insider trading;
Whereas , the Participating Organizations are interested in allocating to FINRA regulatory responsibility for Common FINRA Members (as defined below) for surveillance, investigation and enforcement of Insider Trading (as defined below) in NMS Stocks (as defined below) irrespective of the marketplace(s) maintained by the Participating Organizations on which the relevant trading may occur in violation of Common Insider Trading Rules (as defined below);
Whereas, the Participating Organizations will request regulatory allocation of these regulatory responsibilities by executing and filing with the SEC a plan for the above stated purposes (this Agreement, also known herein as the “Plan”) pursuant to the provisions of § 17(d) of the Act, and SEC Rule 17d-2 thereunder, as described below; and
Whereas, the Participating Organizations will also enter into a Regulatory Services Agreement (the “Insider Trading RSA”), of even date herewith, to provide for the investigation and enforcement of suspected Insider Trading against broker-dealers, and their associated persons, that are not Common FINRA Members in the case of Insider Trading in NMS Stocks.
Now, Therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained hereafter, and other valuable consideration to be mutually exchanged, the Participating Organizations hereby agree as follows:
1. Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this Agreement, or the context otherwise requires, the terms used in this Agreement will have the same meaning they have under the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. As used in this Agreement, the following terms will have the following meanings:
a. “Rule” of an “exchange” or an “association” shall have the meaning defined in Section 3(a)(27) of the Act.
b. “Common FINRA Members” shall mean members of FINRA and at least one of the Participating Organizations.
c. “Common Insider Trading Rules” shall mean (i) the federal securities laws and rules thereunder promulgated by the SEC pertaining to insider trading, and (ii) the rules of the Participating Organizations that are related to insider trading, as provided on Exhibit A to this Agreement.
d. “Effective Date” shall have the meaning set forth in paragraph 27.
e. “Insider Trading” shall mean any conduct or action taken by a natural person or entity related in any way to the trading of securities by an insider or a related party based on or on the basis of material non-public information obtained during the performance of the insider's duties at the corporation, or otherwise misappropriated, that could be deemed a violation of the Common Insider Trading Rules.
f. “Intellectual Property” will mean any: (1) processes, methodologies, procedures, or technology, whether or not patentable; (2) trademarks, copyrights, literary works or other works of authorship, service marks and trade secrets; or (3) software, systems, machine-readable texts and files and related documentation.
g. “Plan” shall mean this Agreement, which is submitted as a Plan for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities of surveillance, investigation and enforcement for insider trading pursuant to § 17(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78q(d), and SEC Rule 17d-2.
h. “NMS Stock(s)” shall have the meaning set forth in Rule 600(b)(47) of SEC Regulation NMS.
i. “Listing Market” shall mean an exchange that lists NMS Stocks.
2. Assumption of Regulatory Responsibilities. On the Effective Date of the Plan, FINRA will assume regulatory responsibilities for surveillance, investigation and enforcement of Insider Trading by broker-dealers, and their associated persons, for Common FINRA Members with respect to NMS Stocks, irrespective of the marketplace(s) maintained by the Participant Organizations on which the relevant trading may occur in violation of the Common Insider Trading Rules (“Regulatory Responsibilities”).
3. Certification of Insider Trading Rules.
a. Initial Certification. By signing this Agreement, the Participating Organizations, other than FINRA, hereby certify to FINRA that their respective lists of Common Insider Trading Rules contained in Exhibit A hereto are correct, and FINRA hereby confirms that such rules are Common Insider Trading Rules as defined in this Agreement.
b. Yearly Certification. Each year following the commencement of operation of this Agreement, or more frequently if required by changes in the rules of the Participating Organizations, each Participating Organization shall submit a certified and updated list of Common Insider Trading Rules to FINRA for review, which shall (i) add Participating Organization rules not included in the then-current list of Common Insider Trading Rules that qualify as Common Insider Trading Rules as defined in this Agreement; (ii) delete Participating Organization rules included in the current list of Common Insider Trading Rules that no longer qualify as Common Insider Trading Rules as defined in this Agreement; and (iii) confirm that the remaining rules on the current list of Common Insider Trading Rules continue to be Participating Organization rules that qualify as Common Insider Trading Rules as defined in this Agreement. FINRA shall review each Participating Organization's annual certification and confirm whether FINRA agrees with the submitted certified and updated list of Common Insider Trading Rules by each of the Participating Organizations.
4. No Retention of Regulatory Responsibility. The Participating Organizations do not contemplate the retention of any responsibilities with respect to the regulatory activities being assumed by FINRA under the terms of this Agreement.
5. Fees. FINRA shall charge Participating Organizations for performing the Regulatory Responsibilities, as set forth in the Schedule of Fees, attached as Exhibit B.
6. Applicability of Certain Laws, Rules, Regulations or Orders. Notwithstanding any provision hereof, this Agreement shall be subject to any statute, or any rule or order of the SEC. To the extent such statute, rule, or order is inconsistent with one or more provisions of this Agreement, the statute, rule, or order shall supersede the provision(s) hereof to the extent necessary to be properly effectuated and the provision(s) hereof in that respect shall be null and void.
7. Exchange Committee; Reports.
a. Exchange Committee. The Participating Organizations shall form a committee (the “Exchange Committee”), which shall act on behalf of all of Participating Organizations in receiving copies of the reports described below and in reviewing issues that arise under this Agreement. Each Participating Organization shall appoint a representative to the Exchange Committee. The Exchange Committee representatives shall report to their respective executive management bodies regarding status or issues under this Agreement. The Participating Organizations agree that the Exchange Committee will meet regularly up to four (4) times a year, with no more than one meeting per calendar quarter. At these meetings, the Exchange Committee will discuss the conduct of the Regulatory Responsibilities and identify issues or concerns with respect to this Agreement, including matters related to the calculation of the cost formula and accuracy of fees charged and provision of information related to the same. The SEC shall be permitted to attend the meetings as an observer.
b. Reports. FINRA shall provide the reports set forth in Exhibit C hereto and any additional reports related to this Agreement reasonably requested by a majority vote of all representatives to the Exchange Committee at each Exchange Committee meeting, or more often as the Participating Organizations deem appropriate, but no more often than once every quarterly billing period.
8. Customer Complaints. If a Participating Organization receives a copy of a customer complaint relating to Insider Trading or other activity or conduct that is within FINRA's Regulatory Responsibilities as set forth in this Agreement, the Participating Organization shall promptly forward to FINRA, as applicable, a copy of such customer complaint.
9. Parties to Make Personnel Available as Witnesses. Each Participating Organization shall make its personnel available to FINRA to serve as testimonial or non-testimonial witnesses as necessary to assist FINRA in fulfilling the Regulatory Responsibilities allocated under this Agreement. FINRA shall provide reasonable advance notice when practicable and shall work with a Participating Organization to accommodate reasonable scheduling conflicts within the context and demands as the entity with ultimate regulatory responsibility. The Participating Organization shall pay all reasonable travel and other expenses incurred by its employees to the extent that FINRA requires such employees to serve as witnesses, and provide information or other assistance pursuant to this Agreement.
10. Market Data; Sharing of Work-Papers, Data and Related Information.
a. Market Data. FINRA shall obtain raw market data necessary to the performance of regulation under this Agreement from (a) the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) and (b) the NASDAQ Unlisted Trading Privileges Plan.
b. Sharing. A Participating Organization shall make available to FINRA information necessary to assist FINRA in fulfilling the Regulatory Responsibilities assumed under the terms of this Agreement. Such information shall include any information collected by a Participating Organization in the course of performing its regulatory obligations under the Act, including information relating to an on-going disciplinary investigation or action against a member, the amount of a fine imposed on a member, financial information, or information regarding proprietary trading systems gained in the course of examining a member (“Regulatory Information”). This Regulatory Information shall be used by FINRA solely for the purposes of fulfilling its Regulatory Responsibilities.
c. No Waiver of Privilege. The sharing of documents or information between the parties pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver as against third parties of regulatory or other privileges relating to the discovery of documents or information.
d. Intellectual Property.
(i) Existing Intellectual Property. FINRA is and will remain the owner of all right, title and interest in and to the proprietary Intellectual Property it employs in the provision of regulation hereunder (including the SONAR system), and any derivative works thereof. To the extent certain elements of FINRA's systems, or portions thereof, may be licensed or leased from third parties, all such third party elements shall remain the property of such third parties, as applicable. Likewise, any other Participating Organization is and will remain the owner of all right, title and interest in and to its own existing proprietary Intellectual Property.
(ii) Enhancements to Existing Intellectual Property or New Developments. In the event FINRA (a) makes any changes, modifications or enhancements to its Intellectual Property for any reason, or (b) creates any newly developed Intellectual Property for any reason, including as a result of requested enhancements or new development by the Exchange Committee (collectively, the “New IP”), the Participating Organizations acknowledge and agree that FINRA shall be deemed the owner of the New IP created by it (and any derivative works thereof), and shall retain all right, title and interest therein and thereto, and each other Participating Organization hereby irrevocably assigns, transfers and conveys to FINRA without further consideration all of its right, title and interest in or to all such New IP (and any derivative works thereof).
(iii) Fees for New IP. FINRA will not charge the Participating Organizations any fees for any New IP created and used by FINRA; provided, however, that FINRA will be permitted to charge fees for software maintenance work performed on systems used in the discharge of its duties hereunder.
11. Special or Cause Examinations. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict or in any way encumber the right of a party to conduct special or cause examinations of Common FINRA Members as any party, in its sole discretion, shall deem appropriate or necessary.
12. Dispute Resolution Under this Agreement.
a. Negotiation. The parties to this Agreement will attempt to resolve any disputes through good faith negotiation and discussion, escalating such discussion up through the appropriate management levels until reaching the executive management level. In the event a dispute cannot be settled through these means, the parties shall refer the dispute to binding arbitration.
b. Binding Arbitration. All claims, disputes, controversies, and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof that cannot be resolved by the parties will be resolved through binding arbitration. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a dispute submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to this paragraph shall be resolved using the following procedures:
(i) The arbitration shall be conducted in the city of New York in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof; and
(ii) There shall be three arbitrators, and the chairperson of the arbitration panel shall be an attorney.
13. Limitation of Liability. As between the Participating Organizations, no Participating Organization, including its respective directors, governors, officers, employees and agents, will be liable to any other Participating Organization, or its directors, governors, officers, employees and agents, for any liability, loss or damage resulting from any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions with respect to its performing or failing to perform regulatory responsibilities, obligations, or functions, except (a) as otherwise provided for under the Act, (b) in instances of a Participating Organization's gross negligence, willful misconduct or reckless disregard with respect to another Participating Organization, (c) in instances of a breach of confidentiality obligations owed to another Participating Organization, or (d) in the case of any Participating Organization paying fees hereunder, for any payments due. The Participating Organizations understand and agree that the Regulatory Responsibilities are being performed on a good faith and best effort basis and no warranties, express or implied, are made by any Participating Organization to any other Participating Organization with respect to any of the responsibilities to be performed hereunder. This paragraph is not intended to create liability of any Participating Organization to any third party.
14. SEC Approval.
a. The parties agree to file promptly this Agreement with the SEC for its review and approval. FINRA shall file this Agreement on behalf, and with the explicit consent, of all Participating Organizations.
b. If approved by the SEC, the Participating Organizations will notify their members of the general terms of this Agreement and of its impact on their members.
15. Subsequent Parties; Limited Relationship. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Participating Organizations hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended or shall: (a) confer on any person other than the Participating Organizations hereto, or their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns, any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement, (b) constitute the Participating Organizations hereto partners or participants in a joint venture, or (c) appoint one Participating Organization the agent of the other.
16. Assignment. No Participating Organization may assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of all the other Participating Organizations, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed; provided, however, that any Participating Organization may assign this Agreement to a corporation controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Participating Organization without the prior written consent of any other party.
17. Severability. Any term or provision of this Agreement that is invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without rendering invalid or unenforceable the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement or affecting the validity or enforceability of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement in any other jurisdiction.
18. Termination.
a. Any Participating Organization may cancel its participation in this Agreement at any time, provided that it has given 180 days written notice to the other Participating Organizations (or in the case of a change of control in ownership of a Participating Organization, such other notice time period as that Participating Organization may choose), and provided that such termination has been approved by the SEC. The cancellation of its participation in this Agreement by any Participating Organization shall not terminate this Agreement as to the remaining Participating Organizations.
b. The Regulatory Responsibilities assumed under this Agreement by FINRA may be terminated by FINRA against any Participating Organization as follows. The Participating Organization will have thirty (30) days from receipt to satisfy the invoice. If the Participating Organization fails to satisfy the invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt (“Default”), FINRA will notify the Participating Organization of the Default. The Participating Organization will have thirty (30) days from receipt of the Default notice to satisfy the invoice.
c. FINRA will have the right to terminate the Regulatory Responsibilities assumed under this Agreement if a Participating Organization has Defaulted in its obligation to pay the invoice on more than three (3) occasions in any rolling twenty-four (24) month period.
19. Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”). In order to participate in this Agreement, all Participating Organizations to this Agreement must be members of the ISG.
20. General. The Participating Organizations agree to perform all acts and execute all supplementary instruments or documents that may be reasonably necessary or desirable to carry out the provisions of this Agreement.
21. Liaison and Notices. All questions regarding the implementation of this Agreement shall be directed to the persons identified below, as applicable. All notices and other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given upon (i) actual receipt by the notified party or (ii) constructive receipt (as of the date marked on the return receipt) if sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses:
For Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.: Greg Hoogasian, Chief Regulatory Officer, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 433 W Van Buren Street [400 S LaSalle Street], Chicago, IL 6060[5] 7 , Telephone: (312) 786-7844, Facsimilie: (312) 786-7982, Email: ghoogasian@cboe.com.
For Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.: Greg Hoogasian, Chief Regulatory Officer, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., 433 W Van Buren Street [400 S LaSalle Street], Chicago, IL 6060[5] 7 , Telephone: (312) 786-7844, Facsimilie: (312) 786-7982, Email: ghoogasian@cboe.com.
For NYSE Texas [Chicago], Inc.: [Anthony Albanese] Tony Frouge , Chief Regulatory Officer, NYSE Group, Inc., 11 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005, Telephone: (212) 656-8297, Facsimile: (212) 656-2027, Email: [Anthony.Albanese] Tony.Frouge@theice.com.
For Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.: Greg Hoogasian, Chief Regulatory Officer, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., 433 W Van Buren Street [400 S LaSalle Street], Chicago, IL 6060[5] 7 , Telephone: (312) 786-7844, Facsimilie: (312) 786-7982, Email: ghoogasian@cboe.com.
For Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.: Greg Hoogasian, Chief Regulatory Officer, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., 433 W Van Buren Street [400 S LaSalle Street], Chicago, IL 6060[5] 7 , Telephone: (312) 786-7844, Facsimilie: (312) 786-7982, Email: ghoogasian@cboe.com.
For Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.: Sam Draddy, Senior Vice President, [Office of Fraud Detection] Surveillance and Market Intelligence, FINRA, 17 00 [35] K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: (240) 386-5042, Facsimile: (301) 407-4635, Email: Sam.Draddy@finra.org.
For MEMX LLC: [Scott Palmer] Adam Schwartz , Chief Regulatory Officer, MEMX LLC, 111 Town Square Place, Suite 520, Jersey City, NJ 07310, Telephone: [(201) 596-6995] (571) 751-2715 , Facsimilie: (201) 331-7904, Email: [ spalmer@memx.com ], aschwarts@memx.com.
For MIAX PEARL, LLC: Edward Deitzel, Chief Regulatory Officer, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 7 Roszel Road, Suite 1A, Princeton, NJ 08540, Telephone: (609) 897-1466, Facsimile: Email: edeitzel@miax[options]global.com.
For Nasdaq BX, Inc.: Jeffrey S. Davis [John A. Zecca], Senior [Executive] Vice President [and Chief Legal and Regulatory Officer], The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, 805 King Farm Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850, Telephone: (301) 978-8498, Facsimile: (301) 978-8472, Email: Jeffrey.Davis@nasdaq.com, [ John.Zecca@nasdaq.com ].
For Nasdaq PHLX LLC: Joseph P. Cusick, Chief Regulatory Officer, Nasdaq PHLX LLC, FMC Tower, Level 8, 2929 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, Telephone: (215) 496-1576, Facsimile: (215) 496-5104, Email: joseph.cusick@nasdaq.com.
For The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC: Jeffrey S. Davis [John A. Zecca], Senior [Executive] Vice President [and Chief Legal and Regulatory Officer], The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, 805 King Farm Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850, Telephone: (301) 978-8498, Facsimile: (301) 978-8472, Email: Jeffrey.Davis@nasdaq.com, [ John.Zecca@nasdaq.com ].
For NYSE National, Inc.: [Anthony Albanese] Tony Frouge, Chief Regulatory Officer, NYSE National, Inc., 11 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005, Telephone: (212) 656-8927, Facsimile: (212) 656-2027, Email: [Anthony.albanese] Tony.Frouge@theice.com.
For New York Stock Exchange LLC: [Anthony Albanese] Tony Frouge, Chief Regulatory Officer, NYSE, 11 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005, Telephone: (212) 656-8927, Facsimile: (212) 656-2027, Email: [Anthony.albanese], Tony.Frouge@theice.com.
For NYSE American LLC: [Anthony Albanese] Tony Frouge, Chief Regulatory Officer, NYSE American, 11 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005, Telephone: (212) 656-8927, Facsimile: (212) 656-2027, Email: [Anthony.albanese] Tony.Frouge@theice.com.
For NYSE Arca, Inc.: [Anthony Albanese] Tony Frouge, Chief Regulatory Officer, NYSE Arca, 11 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005, Telephone: (212) 656-8927, Facsimile: (212) 656-2027, Email: [Anthony.albanese] Tony.Frouge@theice.com.
For Investors' Exchange LLC.: Claudia Crowley, Chief Regulatory Officer, IEX, 3 World Trade Center, 175 Greenwich Street, 58th Floor, New York, NY 10007, Telephone: (646) 343-2041, Facsimile: (646) 365-6862, Email: Claudia.crowley@iextrading.com.
For Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.: [Gary Goldsholle] Jill Ostergaard, Chief Regulatory Officer, LTSE, 100 Greenwich St., Suite 11A, New York, NY 10006, Telephone: (202) 580-5752, Email: [Gary] Jill@longtermstockexchange.com.
For 24X National Exchange LLC: Jeremy Sanchez, Chief Regulatory Officer, 24X National Exchange LLC, 1 Landmark Square, Stamford, Connecticut 06902, Telephone: (516) 749-5795, Email: Jeremy.sanchez@24exchange.com.
22. Confidentiality. The parties agree that documents or information shared shall be held in confidence, and used only for the purposes of carrying out their respective regulatory obligations under this Agreement. No party shall assert regulatory or other privileges as against the other with respect to Regulatory Information that is required to be shared pursuant to this Agreement, as defined by paragraph 10, above.
23. Regulatory Responsibility. Pursuant to Section 17(d)(1)(A) of the Act, and Rule 17d-2 thereunder, the Participating Organizations jointly and severally request the SEC, upon its approval of this Agreement, to relieve the Participating Organizations, jointly and severally, of any and all responsibilities with respect to the matters allocated to FINRA pursuant to this Agreement for purposes of §§ 17(d) and 19(g) of the Act.
24. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been made in the State of New York, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the law of the State of New York, without reference to principles of conflicts of laws thereof. Each of the parties hereby consents to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York in connection with any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement.
25. Survival of Provisions. Provisions intended by their terms or context to survive and continue notwithstanding delivery of the regulatory services by FINRA, the payment of the Fees by the Participating Organizations, and any expiration of this Agreement shall survive and continue.
26. Amendment.
a. This Agreement may be amended to add a new Participating Organization, provided that such Participating Organization does not assume regulatory responsibility, solely by an amendment executed by FINRA and such new Participating Organization. All other Participating Organizations expressly consent to allow FINRA to add new Participating Organizations to this Agreement as provided above. FINRA will promptly notify all Participating Organizations of any such amendments to add a new Participating Organization.
b. All other amendments must be approved by each Participating Organization. All amendments, including adding a new Participating Organization, must be filed with and approved by the SEC before they become effective.
27. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement will be the date the SEC declares this Agreement to be effective pursuant to authority conferred by § 17(d) of the Act, and SEC Rule 17d-2 thereunder.
28. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, including facsimile, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one single agreement between the parties.

{Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.}
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have each caused this Agreement for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibility of Surveillance, Investigation and Enforcement for Insider Trading to be signed and delivered by its duly authorized representative.

Exhibit A: Common Insider Trading Rules
1. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 10(b), and rules and regulations promulgated there under in connection with insider trading, including SEC Rule 10b-5 (as it pertains to insider trading), which states that:
Rule 10b-5—Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
a. To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
b. To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
c. To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.
2. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 17(a), and rules and regulations promulgated there under in connection with insider trading, including SEC Rule 17a-3 (as it pertains to insider trading).
3. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 14e-3—Transactions in securities on the basis of material, nonpublic information in the context of tender offers.
4. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 15(g) in connection with insider trading and protection of material, nonpublic information.
5. The following SRO Rules as they pertain to violations of insider trading:
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
FINRA Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices)
FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision)
FINRA Rule 4511 (General Requirements)
FINRA Rule 4512 (Customer Account Information)
MEMX Rule 3.1 (Business Conduct of Members)
MEMX Rule 3.2 (Violations Prohibited)
MEMX Rule 3.3 (Use of Fraudulent Devices)
MEMX Rule 4.1 (Requirements)
MEMX Rule 5.1 (Written Procedures)
MEMX Rule 5.3 (Records)
MEMX Rule 5.5 (Prevention of Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information)
MEMX Rule 12.4 (Manipulative Transactions)
MIAX PEARL Equities Rule 2100 (Business Conduct of Members)
MIAX PEARL Equities Rule 2101 (Violations Prohibited)
MIAX PEARL Equities Rule 2102 (Use of Fraudulent Devices)
MIAX PEARL Equities Rule 2200 (General Requirements)
MIAX PEARL Equities Rule 2201 (Customer Account Information)
MIAX PEARL Equities Rule 2300 (Supervision)
MIAX PEARL Equities Rule 2303 (Prevention of Misuse of Material, Non-Public Information)
MIAX PEARL Equities Rule 2703 (Manipulative Transactions)
NYSE Rule 440 (Books and Records)
NYSE Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
NYSE Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices)
NYSE Rule 3110 (Supervision)
NYSE American General and Floor Rule 3(j) (General Prohibitions and Duty to Report)
NYSE American Rule 2.24[-]E (ETP Books and Records)
NYSE American Rule 2010 (Equities. Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
NYSE American Rule 2020 (Equities. Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices)
NYSE American Rule 3110 (Equities. Supervision)
Nasdaq Rule General 9, Section 1(a) (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
Nasdaq Rule General 9, Section 1(g) (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices)
Nasdaq Rule General 9, Section 20 (Supervision)
Nasdaq Rule General 9, Section 43 (General Requirements
Nasdaq Rule General 9, Section 45 (Customer Account Information)
NYSE Texas [CHX] Article 8, Rule 3 (Fraudulent Acts)
NYSE Texas [CHX] Article 9, Rule 2 (Just & Equitable Trade Principles)
NYSE Texas [CHX] Article 11, Rule 2 (Maintenance of Books and Records)
[CHX Article 6, Rule 5 (Supervision of Representatives and Branch and Resident Offices)] NYSE Texas Rule 11.3110 (Supervision)
PHLX Rule General 9, Section 1(c)(1) Conduct Inconsistent with Just and Equitable Principles of Trade
PHLX Rule General 9, Section 20 (Supervision)
PHLX Rule General 9, Section 21 (Supervisory Procedures Relating to ITSFEA and to Prevention of Misuse or Material Nonpublic Information)
PHLX Rule General 9, Section 1(b) (Manipulative Operations)
NYSE Arca Rule 2.28 (Books and Records)
NYSE Arca Rule 5.1-E(a)(2)(v)(D) (General Provisions and Unlisted Trading Privileges)
NYSE Arca Rule 11.1 (Adherence to Law and Good Business Practice)
NYSE Arca Rule 11.2(b) (Prohibited Acts (J&E))
NYSE Arca Rule 11.3 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information)
NYSE Arca Rule 11.18 (Supervision)
NYSE Arca Rule 9.1-E(c) (Office Supervision)
NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E(b) (Account Supervision)
NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E(c) (Customer Records)
NYSE Arca Rule 9.2010-E (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
NYSE Arca Rule 9.2020-E (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices)
NYSE National Rule 5.1(a)(2)(D)(iv) (Unlisted Trading Privileges)
NYSE National Rule 11.3.1 (Business Conduct of ETP Holders)
NYSE National Rule 11.3.2 (Violations Prohibited)
NYSE National Rule 11.3.3 (Use of Fraudulent Devices)
NYSE National Rule 11.4.1 (Requirements)
NYSE National Rule 11.5.1 (Written Procedures)
NYSE National Rule 11.5.3 (Records)
NYSE National Rule 11.5.5 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information)
NYSE National Rule 11.12.4 (Manipulative Transactions)
BX Rule General 9, Section 1(a) (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
BX Rule General 9, Section 1(h[i]) (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices)
BX Rule General 9, Section 20 (Supervision)
BX Rule General 9, Section 30(a) [and (b)] (Books and Records[; Financial Condition])
BZX Rule 3.1 (Business Conduct of Members)
BZX Rule 3.2 (Violations Prohibited)
BZX Rule 3.3 (Use of Fraudulent Devices)
BZX Rule 4.1 (Requirements)
BZX Rule 5.1 (Written Procedures)
BZX Rule 5.3 (Records)
BZX Rule 5.5 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Non-Public Information)
BZX Rule 12.4 (Manipulative Transactions)
BYX Rule 3.1 (Business Conduct of Members [ETP Holders])
BYX Rule 3.2 (Violations Prohibited)
BYX Rule 3.3 (Use of Fraudulent Devices)
BYX Rule 4.1 (Requirements)
BYX Rule 5.1 (Written Procedures)
BYX Rule 5.3 (Records)
BYX Rule 5.5 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Non-Public Information)
BYX Rule 12.4 (Manipulative Transactions)
EDGA Rule 3.1 (Business Conduct of Members)
EDGA Rule 3.2 (Violations Prohibited)
EDGA Rule 3.3 (Use of Fraudulent Devices)
EDGA Rule 4.1 (Requirements)
EDGA Rule 5.1 (Written Procedures)
EDGA Rule 5.3 (Records)
EDGA Rule 5.5 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information)
EDGA Rule 12.4 (Manipulative Transactions)
EDGX Rule 3.1 (Business Conduct of Members)
EDGX Rule 3.2 (Violations Prohibited)
EDGX Rule 3.3 (Use of Fraudulent Devices)
EDGX Rule 4.1 (Requirements)
EDGX Rule 5.1 (Written Procedures)
EDGX Rule 5.3 (Records)
EDGX Rule 5.5 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information)
EDGX Rule 12.4 (Manipulative Transactions)
IEX Rule 3.110 (Business Conduct of Members)
IEX Rule 3.120 (Violations Prohibited)
IEX Rule 3.130 (Use of Fraudulent Devices)
IEX Rule 4.511 (General Requirements)
IEX Rule 4.512 (Customer Account Information)
IEX Rule 5.110 (Supervision)
IEX Rule 5.150 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Non-Public Information)
IEX Rule 10.140 (Manipulative Transactions)
LTSE Rule 3.110 (Business Conduct of Members)
LTSE Rule 3.120 (Violations Prohibited)
LTSE Rule 3.130 (Use of Fraudulent Devices)
LTSE Rule 4.511 (General Requirements)
LTSE Rule 4.512 (Customer Account Information)
LTSE Rule 5.110 (Supervision)
LTSE Rule 5.150 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Non-Public Information)
LTSE Rule 10.140 (Manipulative Transactions)
24X Rule 3.1 (Business Conduct of Members)
24X Rule 3.2 (Violations Prohibited)
24X Rule 3.3 (Use of Fraudulent Devices)
24X Rule 4.1 (Requirements)
24X Rule 5.1 (Written Procedures)
24X Rule 5.3 (Records)
24X Rule 5.5 (Prevention of Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information)
24X Rule 12.4 (Manipulative Transactions)

Exhibit B: Fee Schedule
1. Fees. FINRA shall charge each Participating Organization a Quarterly Fee in arrears for the performance of FINRA's Regulatory Responsibilities under the Plan (each, a “Quarterly Fee,” and together, the “Fees”).
a. Quarterly Fees.
(1) Quarterly Fees for each Participating Organization will be charged by FINRA according to the Participating Organization's “Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades” occurring over three-month billing periods. The “Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades” shall equal a Participating Organization's total number of reported NMS Stock trades during the relevant period as specified in paragraph 1b. (the “Numerator”), divided by the total number of all NMS Stock trades for the same period as specified in paragraph 1b.(the “Denominator”). For purposes of clarification, ADF and Trade Reporting Facility (“TRF”) activity will be included in the Denominator. Additionally, with regard to TRFs, TRF trade volume will be charged to FINRA. Consequently, for purposes of calculating the Quarterly Fees, the volume for each Participant Organization's TRF will be calculated separately (that is, TRF volume will be broken out from the Participating Organization's overall Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades) and the fees for such will be billed to FINRA in accordance with paragraph 1a.(2), rather than to the applicable Participating Organization.
(2) The Quarterly Fees shall be determined by FINRA in the following manner for each Participating Organization:
(a) Less than 1.0%: If the Participating Organization's Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades for the relevant three-month billing period is less than 1.0%, the Quarterly Fee shall be $6,250, per quarter (“Static Fee”);
(b) Less than 2.0% but No Less than 1.0%: If the Participating Organization's Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades for the relevant three-month billing period is less than 2.0% but no less than 1.0%, the Quarterly Fee shall be $18,750, per quarter (“Static Fee”);
(c) 2.0% or Greater: If the Participating Organization's Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades for the relevant three-month billing period is 2.0% or greater, the Quarterly Fee shall be the amount equal to the Participating Organization's Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades multiplied by FINRA's total charge (“Total Charge”) for its performance of Regulatory Responsibilities for the relevant three-month billing period.
(3) Increases in Static Fees. FINRA will re-evaluate the Quarterly Fees on an annual basis during the annual budget process outlined in paragraph 1.c. below. During each annual re-evaluation, FINRA will have the discretion to increase the Static Fees by a percentage no greater than the percentage increase in the Final Budget over the preceding year's Final Budget. Any changes to the Static Fees shall not require an amendment to this Agreement, but rather shall be memorialized through the budget process.
(4) Increases in Total Charges. Any change in the Total Charges (whether a Final Budget increase or any mid year change) shall not require an amendment to this Agreement, but rather shall be memorialized through the budget process.
b. Source of Data. For purposes of calculation of the Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades for each Participating Organization, FINRA will use trades reported to the two SIPs (a) the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”), and (b) the Unlisted Trading Privileges Plan. In each case, FINRA will use the total trades as may be adjusted by the Participating Organization. Adjustments will include any separation or breakup of the number of trades as a result of reporting of bunched or bundled trades by a Participating Organization but will not include any adjustments resulting from single-priced opening, reopening or closing auction trades. Each Participating Organization that reports bunched or bundled trades will report to FINRA any adjustments to its total number of NMS Stock trades on the 15th of the month following the end of the quarter.
c. Annual Budget Forecast. FINRA will notify the Participating Organizations of the forecasted costs of its insider trading program for the following calendar year by close of business on October 15 of the then-current year (the “Forecasted Budget”). FINRA shall use best efforts to provide as accurate a forecast as possible. FINRA shall then provide a final submission of the costs following approval of such costs by its Board of Governors (the “Final Budget”). Subject to paragraph 1d. below, in the event of a difference between the Forecasted Budget and the Final Budget, the Final Budget will govern.
d. Increases in Fees over Five Percent.
(1) In the event that any proposed increase to Fees by FINRA for a given calendar year (which increase may arise either during the annual budgetary forecasting process or through any mid-year increase) will result in a cumulative increase in such calendar year's Fees of more than five percent (5%) above the preceding calendar year's Final Budget (a “Major Increase”), then senior management of any Participating Organization (a) that is a Listing Market or (b) for which the Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades is then currently twenty percent (20%) or greater, shall have the right to call a meeting with the senior management of FINRA in order to discuss any disagreement over such proposed Major Increase. By way of example, if FINRA provides a Final Budget for 2011 that represents an 4% increase above the Final Budget for 2010, the terms of this paragraph 1.d.(1) shall not apply; if, however, in April of 2011, FINRA notifies the Exchange Committee of an increase in Fees that represents an additional 3% increase above the Final Budget for 2010, then the increase shall be deemed a Major Increase, and the terms of this paragraph 1.d.(1) shall become applicable ( i.e., 4% and 3% represents a cumulative increase of 7% above the 2010 Final Budget).
(2) In the event that senior management members of the involved parties are unable to reach an agreement regarding the proposed Major Increase, then the matter shall be referred back to the Exchange Committee for final resolution. Prior to the matter being referred back to the Exchange Committee, nothing shall prohibit the parties from conferring with the SEC. Resolution shall be reached through a vote of no fewer than all Participating Organizations seated on the Exchange Committee, and a simple majority shall be required in order to reject the proposed Major Increase.
e. Time Tracking. FINRA shall track the time spent by staff on insider trading responsibilities under this Agreement; however, time tracking will not be used to allocate costs.
2. Invoicing and Payment. FINRA shall invoice each Participating Organization for the Quarterly Fee associated with the regulatory activities performed pursuant to this Agreement during the previous three-month billing period within forty five (45) days of the end of such previous 3-month billing period. A Participating Organization shall have thirty (30) days from date of invoice to make payment to FINRA on such invoice. The invoice will reflect the Participating Organization's Percentage of Publicly Reported Trades for that billing period.
3. Disputed Invoices; Interest. In the event that a Participating Organization disputes an invoice or a portion of an invoice, the Participating Organization shall notify FINRA in writing of the disputed item(s) within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the invoice. In its notification to FINRA of the disputed invoice, the Participating Organization shall identify the disputed item(s) and provide a brief explanation of why the Participating Organization disputes the charges. FINRA may charge a Participating Organization interest on any undisputed invoice or the undisputed portions of a disputed invoice that a Participating Organization fails to pay within thirty (30) days of its receipt of such invoice. Such interest shall be assessed monthly. Interest will mean one and one half percent per month, or the maximum allowable under applicable law, whichever is less.
4. Taxes. In the event any governmental authority deems the regulatory activities allocated to FINRA to be taxable activities similar to the provision of services in a commercial context, the other Participating Organizations agree that they shall bear full responsibility, on a joint and several basis, for the payment of any such taxes levied on FINRA, or, if such taxes are paid by FINRA directly to the governmental authority, the other Participating Organizations agree that they shall reimburse FINRA for the amount of any such taxes paid.
5. Audit Right; Record Keeping.
a. Audit Right.
(i) Once every rolling twelve (12) month period, FINRA shall permit no more than one audit (to be performed by one or more Participating Organizations) of the Fees charged by FINRA to the Participating Organizations hereunder and a detailed cost analysis supporting such Fees (the “Audit”). The Participating Organization or Organizations that conduct this Audit will select a nationally-recognized independent auditing firm (or may use its regular independent auditor, providing it is a nationally-recognized auditing firm) (“Auditing Firm”) to act on its, or their behalf, and will provide reasonable notice to other Participating Organizations of the Audit. FINRA will permit the Auditing Firm reasonable access during FINRA's normal business hours, with reasonable advance notice, to such financial records and supporting documentation as are necessary to permit review of the accuracy of the calculation of the Fees charged to the Participating Organizations. The Participating Organization, or Organizations, as applicable, other than FINRA, shall be responsible for the costs of performing any such audit.
(ii) If, through an Audit, the Exchange Committee determines that FINRA has inaccurately calculated the Fees for any Participating Organization, the Exchange Committee will promptly notify FINRA in writing of the amount of such difference in the Fees, and, if applicable, FINRA shall issue a reimbursement of the overage amount to the relevant Participating Organization(s), less any amount owed by the Participating Organization under any outstanding, undisputed invoice(s). If such an Audit reveals that any Participating Organization paid less than what was required pursuant to the Agreement, then that Participating Organization shall promptly pay FINRA the difference between what the Participating Organization owed pursuant to the Agreement and what that Participating Organization originally paid FINRA. If FINRA disputes the results of an Audit regarding the accuracy of the Fees, it will submit the dispute for resolution pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures in paragraph 12 of the Agreement.
(iii) In the event that through the review of any supporting documentation provided during the Audit, any one or more Participating Organizations desire to discuss with FINRA the supporting documentation and any questions arising therefrom with regard to the manner in which regulation was conducted, the Participating Organization(s) shall call a meeting with FINRA. FINRA shall in turn notify the Exchange Committee of this meeting in advance, and all Participating Organizations shall be welcome to attend (the “Fee Analysis Meeting”). The parties to this Agreement acknowledge and agree that while FINRA commits to discuss the supporting documentation at the Fee Analysis Meeting, FINRA shall not be subject, by virtue of the above Audit rights or any discussions during the Fee Analysis Meeting or otherwise, to any limitation whatsoever, other than the Increase in Fee provisions set forth in paragraph 1.d. of this Exhibit, on its discretion as to the manner and means by which it conducts its regulatory efforts in its role as the SRO primarily liable for regulatory decisions under this Agreement. To that end, no disagreement among the Participating Organizations as to the manner or means by which FINRA conducts its regulatory efforts hereunder shall be subject to the dispute resolution procedures hereunder, and no Participating Organization shall have the right to compel FINRA to alter the manner or means by which it conducts its regulatory efforts. Further, a Participating Organization shall not have the right to compel a rebate or reassessment of fees for services rendered, on the basis that the Participating Organization would have conducted regulatory efforts in a different manner than FINRA in its professional judgment chose to conduct its regulatory efforts.
b. Record Keeping. In anticipation of any audit that may be performed by the Exchange Committee under paragraph 5.a. above, FINRA shall keep accurate financial records and documentation relating to the Fees charged by it under this Agreement.

Exhibit C: Reports
FINRA shall provide the following information in reports to the Exchange Committee, which information covers activity occurring under this Agreement:
1. Alert Summary Statistics: Total number of surveillance system alerts generated by quarter along with associated number of reviews and investigations. In addition, this paragraph shall also reflect the number of reviews and investigations originated from a source other than an alert. A separate table would be presented for the trading activity of the NMS Stocks listed on each Participating Organization's exchange.
2008 | Surveillance alerts | Investigations
1st Quarter | |
2nd Quarter | |
3rd Quarter | |
4th Quarter | |
2008 Total | |
2. Aging of Open Matters: Would reflect the aging for all currently open matters for the quarterly period being reported. A separate table would be presented for the trading activity of the NMS Stocks listed on each Participating Organization's exchange.
Example:
| Surveillance alerts | Investigations
0-6 months | |
6-9 months | |
9-12 months | |
12+ months | |
Total | |
3. Timeliness of Completed Matters: Would reflect the total age of those matters that were completed or closed during the quarterly period being reported. FINRA will provide total referrals to the SEC.
Example:
| Surveillance alerts | Investigations
0-6 months | |
6-9 months | |
9-12 months | |
12+ months | |
Total | |
4. Disposition of Closed Matters: Would reflect the disposition of those matters that were completed or closed during the quarterly period being reported. A separate table would be presented for the trading activity of the NMS Stocks listed on each Participating Organization's exchange.
Example:
| Surveillance YTD | Investigations YTD
No Further Review | |
Letter of Caution/Admonition Fine | |
Referred to Legal/Enforcement | |
Referred to SEC/SRO | |
Merged | |
Other | |
Total | |
5. Pending Reviews. In addition to the above reports, the Chief Regulatory Officer (CRO) (or his or her designee) of any Participating Organization that is also a Listing Market may inquire about pending reviews involving stocks listed on that Participating Organization's market. FINRA will respond to such inquiries from a CRO; provided, however, that (a) the CRO must hold any information provided by FINRA in confidence and (b) FINRA will not be compelled to provide information in contradiction of any mandate, directive or order from the SEC, US Attorney's Office, the Office of any State Attorney General or court of competent jurisdiction.

IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission's internet comment form ( http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml ); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov . Please include File Number 4-566 on the subject line.

Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number 4-566. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website ( http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed plan that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed plan between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the plan also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Participating Organizations. Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-566 and should be submitted on or before July 28, 2025.

V. Discussion
The Commission finds that the Plan, as proposed to be amended, is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act ^{14} and Rule 17d-2 thereunder ^{15} in that it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and fosters the development of the national market system. The Commission continues to believe that the Plan, as amended, should reduce unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating regulatory responsibility for the surveillance, investigation, and enforcement of Common Rules to FINRA. Accordingly, the proposed amendment to the Plan promotes efficiency by consolidating these regulatory functions in a single SRO.
^{14} 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
^{15} 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may, after appropriate notice and comment, declare a plan, or any part of a plan, effective. In this instance, the Commission believes that appropriate notice and comment can take place after the proposed amendment is effective. The amendment adds 24X as a Participant to the Plan, and reflects the name change of NYSE Chicago, Inc. to NYSE Texas, Inc. ^{16} The Commission believes that the current amendment to the Plan does not raise any new regulatory issues that the Commission has not previously considered, and therefore believes that the amended Plan should become effective without any undue delay.
^{16} The Commission notes that the most recent prior amendment to the Plan, which, among other things, added Pearl as a Party to the Plan, was published for comment and the Commission did not receive any comments thereon. See supra note 11.

VI. Conclusion
This order gives effect to the amended Plan submitted to the Commission that is contained in File No. 4-566.
It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act, ^{17} that the Plan, as amended, filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 on June 25, 2025, is hereby approved and declared effective.
^{17} 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
It Is Further Ordered that the Participating Organizations are relieved of those regulatory responsibilities allocated to FINRA under the amended Plan to the extent of such allocation.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. ^{18}
^{18} 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).
Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-103361; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2025-046]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Transaction Credit at Equity 7, Section 118(a)
July 1, 2025.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) ^1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, ^2 notice is hereby given that on June 18, 2025, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
^1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
^2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction credit at Equity 7, Section 118(a).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rulefilings, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
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.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend M-ELO Supplemental Credit B to align with how the incentive was originally intended to apply. Currently, the Exchange's Supplemental Credit B at Equity 7, Section 118(a) to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity (per share executed) states that in order to receive the relevant $0.00015 per share credit, the “member, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, executes a combined volume of at least a 5 million shares ADV through midpoint orders provided and M-ELO Orders during the month.” The Exchange proposes to note that the 0.00015 per share credit applies when “a member, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, executes a combined volume of at least a 5 million shares ADV through midpoint orders provided (that execute against M-ELO) and M-ELO Orders during the month.” The proposed rule change would align with how the incentive was intended to apply as originally communicated to customers at the establishment of M-ELO Supplemental Credit B. ^3
^3 See Equity Trader Alert #2022-54, Nasdaq and PSX Pricing Updates Effective June 1, 2022 (May 31, 2022).

2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, ^4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act, ^5 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
^4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
^5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.” ^6
^6 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (“Regulation NMS Adopting Release”).
Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission ^7 (“NetCoalition”) the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based approach. ^8 As the court emphasized, the Commission “intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.” ^9
^7 NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
^8 See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
^9 Id. at 537.
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .” ^{10}
^{10} Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the change to M-ELO Supplemental Credit B is reasonable because the change aligns with how the incentive was intended to apply as originally communicated to customers at the establishment of M-ELO Supplemental Credit B. The Exchange believes that the change to the fee language is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the change will apply to all similarly situated members and reflects the understanding customers currently have about how the fee is assessed.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
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 notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. Further, as the proposal reflects the understanding customers currently have about how M-ELO Supplemental Credit B is assessed and aligns with how the incentive was originally intended to apply as communicated to customers at the establishment of M-ELO Supplemental Credit B, the proposal does not impose an undue burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. ^{11}
^{11} 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments
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:

Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission's internet comment form ( https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include file number SR-NASDAQ-2025-046 on the subject line.

Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-NASDAQ-2025-046. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website ( https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-NASDAQ-2025-046 and should be submitted on or before July 28, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. ^{12}
^{12} 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-103364; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2024-87]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E (Trust Units) and To List and Trade Shares of the Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund LLC Under Amended NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E (Trust Units)
July 1, 2025.

I. Introduction
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) ^1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, ^2 NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (“Proposal”), to amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E (Trust Units) and to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund LLC (“Fund”) under amended NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E. ^3 The Proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register . ^4 This order approves the Proposal on an accelerated basis.
^1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
^2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
^3 For the complete procedural history of the Proposal, see Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule Change to Amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E and to List and Trade Shares of the Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund LLC, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 103345 (June 27, 2025) (SR-NYSEARCA-2024-87) (“Amendment No. 1”), available at: https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/sro/nysearca/2025/34-103345.pdf.
^4 Comments received on the Proposal are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2024-87/srnysearca202487.htm.

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Amendments to NYSE Arca Rules 8.500-E and 5.3-E
As described in more detail in the Amendment No. 1, ^5 the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E (Trust Units). First, the Exchange proposes to revise the definition of “Trust Units.” Currently, the rule provides that Trust Units are securities “issued by a trust or similar entity that is constituted as a commodity pool that holds investments comprising or otherwise based on any combination of futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, swap contracts, commodities and/or securities.” ^6 The Exchange proposes to amend this definition to specify that (i) Trust Units may also be issued by a limited liability company; and (ii) Trust Units may be commodity pools, “if applicable.” ^7
^5 See supra note 3.
^6 See NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E(b)(2).
^7 See Amendment No. 1 at 3-4.
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E to specify that the Exchange may list and trade Trust Units with investments that are represented by an index or portfolio. ^8 Currently, the rule only provides that the Exchange may list and trade Trust Units based on an underlying asset, commodity, security, or portfolio. ^9 As revised, Trust Units may be based on an underlying asset, commodity, security, and/or portfolio, “which may be represented by an index or portfolio of any of the foregoing.” ^{10}
^8 See id. at 4.
^9 See NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E(c).
^{10} See Amendment No. 1 at 4.
Third, the Exchange proposes certain conforming changes to the rule, consistent with the proposed changes described above. ^{11}
^{11} See id. at 4-6 for additional details. The Exchange also proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E(b)(1), which defines the term “commodity,” to update the reference to Section 1(a)(4) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) with a reference to Section 1a(9) of the CEA. See id. at 3.
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rules 5.3-E (Corporate Governance and Disclosure Policies) and 5.3-E(e) (Shareholder Annual Meetings) to include Trust Units listed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E among the derivative and special purpose securities to which a limited set of corporate governance and disclosure policies would apply and to which the requirements concerning shareholder/annual meetings would not be required. ^{12}
^{12} See id. at 6.

B. The Fund
The Exchange proposes to list and trade Shares of the Fund under amended NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E, as described above. The investment objective of the Fund is for the value of the Shares to reflect the value of the digital assets held by the Fund (“Fund Components”), as determined by reference to their respective Index Prices ^{13} and weightings within the Fund, less the Fund's expenses and other liabilities. ^{14} The Fund's assets consist solely of the Fund Components. ^{15} The Fund Components, as well as their weightings, will consist of the digital assets that make up the CoinDesk 5 Index (“CD5”), as rebalanced from time to time, subject to the Manager's discretion to exclude and/or rebalance the weighting of individual digital assets in certain rules-based circumstances. ^{16} The Manager will ensure that, on an initial and continuing basis, as of 4:00 p.m. E.T. on every trading day, at least 85% of the Fund Components will consist of commodities that are the primary investment underlying exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) that have been approved by the Commission to list and trade on a national securities exchange (“Approved Components”) ^{17} and that no more than 15% of the Fund Components will be non-Approved Components. ^{18} As of the date of the Amendment No. 1, the Fund Components and their weightings were bitcoin (80.20%), ether (11.39%), Solana (2.78%), XRP (4.82%), and Cardano (0.81%). ^{19}
^{13} The “Index Price” of each Fund Component is the U.S. dollar value derived from the Digital Asset Trading Platforms that are reflected in each Fund Component's CoinDesk CCIXber Reference Rate, calculated at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day. See id. at 10, n.20. A “Digital Asset Trading Platform” is an electronic marketplace where participants may trade, buy, and sell digital assets based on bid-ask trading. See id. at 15, n.29.
^{14} See id. at 11. The Fund is a Cayman Islands limited liability company. The manager of the Fund is Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC (“Manager”). The custodian is Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC. See id. at 7.
^{15} See id. at 9.
^{16} See id. at 9. CD5 represents the five largest and the most liquid digital assets in the digital asset market. The respective weightings of CD5 components are determined by market capitalization and rebalanced quarterly. See id. at 9, n.18; 32-33; 35-36.
^{17} As of the filing of Amendment No. 1, more than 85% of the Fund Components were bitcoin (80.20%) and ether (11.39%). See id. at 8. The Commission approved both spot bitcoin and spot ether to underlie ETPs as primary investments. See Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Thereto, To List and Trade Bitcoin-Based Commodity-Based Trust Shares and Trust Units, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 99306 (Jan. 10, 2024), 89 FR 3008 (Jan. 17, 2024) (SR-NYSEARCA-2021-90; SR-NYSEARCA-2023-44; SR-NYSEARCA-2023-58; SR-NASDAQ-2023-016; SR-NASDAQ-2023-019; SR-CboeBZX-2023-028; SR-CboeBZX-2023-038; SR-CboeBZX-2023-040; SR-CboeBZX-2023-042; SR-CboeBZX-2023-044; SR-CboeBZX-2023-072) (“Spot Bitcoin ETP Approval Order”); Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Thereto, To List and Trade Shares of Ether-Based Exchange-Traded Products, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100224 (May 23, 2024), 89 FR 46937 (May 30, 2024) (SR-NYSEARCA-2023-70; SR-NYSEARCA-2024-31; SR-NASDAQ-2023-045; SR-CboeBZX-2023-069; SR-CboeBZX-2023-070; SR-CboeBZX-2023-087; SR-CboeBZX-2023-095; SR-CboeBZX-2024-018) (“Spot Ether ETP Approval Order”); Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to List and Trade Shares of the Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF and Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to List and Trade Shares of the Franklin Crypto Index ETF, a Series of the Franklin Crypto Trust, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 101998 (Dec. 19, 2024), 89 FR 106707 (Dec. 30, 2024) (SR-NASDAQ-2024-028; SR-CBOEBZX-2024-091) (“Spot Bitcoin & Ether ETP Approval Order”). The Spot Bitcoin ETP Approval Order, Spot Ether ETP Approval Order; and Spot Bitcoin & Ether ETP Approval Order each approved the listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares holding 100% of their assets in spot bitcoin and/or spot ether.
^{18} See Amendment No. 1 at 34. The Exchange states that, to the extent the Fund's composition is, or is anticipated to be, less than 85% Approved Components as of 4:00 p.m. E.T. on a given trading day, the Manager will promptly notify the Exchange. As soon as practicable and in any event by no later than the beginning of the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session on the following trading day, the Manager will rebalance the Fund's portfolio according to the methodology described in the Fund's prospectus such that at least 85% of the weightings of the Fund Components will consist of Approved Components. If it is anticipated that, as of 4:00 p.m. E.T. on a given trading day, the Fund's portfolio will not consist of at least 85% Approved Components by the start of the next NYSE Arca Core Trading Session, the Manager will notify the Exchange as soon as practicable (and, in any event, no later than 9:15 a.m. E.T.), and the Exchange will halt trading in the Shares until at least 85% of the weightings of the Fund Components consist of Approved Components. See id. at 34-35.
^{19} See id. at 8.
The Fund will use the Index Price for each Fund Component to calculate its net asset value (“NAV”), which will occur at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day or as soon thereafter as practicable. ^{20} The Fund will issue Shares to, and redeem Shares from, authorized participants on an ongoing basis for cash, but only in one or more “Baskets” of 10,000 Shares. ^{21}
^{20} See id. at 12-14. The rules that the Manager will employ to calculate the Index Prices for each Fund Component are described in Amendment No. 1. See id. at 48-51.
^{21} See id. at 69, 71.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. ^{22} In particular, the Commission finds that the Proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, ^{23} which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to “prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” and, “in general, to protect investors and the public interest;” and with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act, ^{24} which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
^{22} In approving the Proposal, the Commission has considered the Proposal's impacts on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
^{23} 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
^{24} 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).

A. Amendments to NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E and 5.3-E
The Commission finds that the proposed changes to NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E are consistent with the Exchange Act. The proposed change to the definition of Trust Units as described above simply specifies that an entity structured as a limited liability company can issue Trust Units. Moreover, by amending the rule so that Trust Units may be commodity pools “if applicable,” the Proposal no longer requires Trust Units to be commodity pools. ^{25} Although the Proposal no longer requires the entity issuing Trust Units to be a commodity pool, it does not change Trust Units' permissible investments, which remain “any combination of futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, swap contracts, commodities and/or securities.” ^{26} Accordingly, the Proposal provides flexibility on Trust Units structure without changes to permissible investments. Similarly, the Proposal's provision that Trust Units' underlying investments may be represented by an index or portfolio of permissible investments merely adds specificity that is consistent with the current rule text. All Trust Units listed and traded on the Exchange will continue to be subject to the initial and continued listing standards set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E and will continue to be subject to the full panoply of the Exchange's rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of equity securities on the Exchange including, among others, rules and procedures governing trading halts, surveillance procedures, disclosures to members, customer suitability requirements, and market maker obligations.
^{25} See Section 1a(10) of the CEA for the definition of “commodity pool.”
^{26} NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E(b)(2).
The Commission finds that it is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act ^{27} for the Exchange to include Trust Units among the types of securities to which a limited set of corporate governance and disclosure policies would apply and to which the requirements concerning shareholder/annual meetings would not be required. Like other types of securities listed in NYSE Arca Rules 5.3-E and 5.3-E(e), Trust Units are investment vehicles where unit holders, unlike other equity holders, do not directly participate or vote in the annual election of directors or generally on the operations or policies of the listed company. ^{28} Thus, the Exchange's rules, as amended, would continue to ensure that the appropriate listed companies are required to comply with corporate governance and disclosure policies and hold annual shareholder meetings, for the benefit of investors and the public interest.
^{27} 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
^{28} See Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Section 302 of the Listed Company Manual To Provide Exemptions for the Issuers of Certain Categories of Securities From the Obligation To Hold Annual Shareholders' Meetings, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86406 (July 18, 2019), 84 FR 35431 (July 23, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2019-20) (“The Commission believes the right of shareholders to vote at an annual meeting is an essential and important one. The Commission, however, believes that the requirement to hold an annual shareholder meeting may not be necessary for certain issuers of specific types of securities because the holders of such securities do not directly participate as equity holders and vote in the annual election of directors or generally on the operations or policies of the listed company.”); Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 3 Thereto Relating to Rule 4350(e) To Amend the Annual Shareholder Meeting Requirement, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53578 (Mar. 30, 2006); 71 FR 17532 (Apr. 4, 2006) (SR-NASD-2005-073). The Exchange is reverting the previous deletion of Trust Units from NYSE Arca Rules 5.3-E and 5.3-E(e). See Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E To Exclude Certain Categories of Issuers From the Exchange's Annual Meeting Requirement, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83324 (May 24, 2018), 83 FR 25076 (May 31, 2018) (SR-NYSEARCA-2018-31) (stating that the Exchange is removing Trust Units from those derivative and special purpose securities that are excluded from certain corporate governance requirements because “the Exchange does not presently list any security under the . . . Trust Units standards” and that “[s]hould the Exchange list securities under the . . . Trust Units standards in the future, it may consider whether to amend its rules at that time to allow for certain corporate governance exclusions applicable to such classes of securities.”). See id. at 25077-78 and n.10.

B. The Fund

1. Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5)
The Commission finds that the listing and trading of the Fund is consistent with the Exchange Act. The structure of the Fund, the terms of its operation and the trading of its Shares, and the representations in the Proposal are substantially similar to those of other proposals approved in prior Commission orders. On an initial basis, and on a continuing basis reflecting subsequent ETP approvals, at least 85% of the Fund's holdings will consist of commodities that the Commission has approved to underlie an ETP as primary investments, with no more than 15% of the Fund's investments in other assets, which could include other types of commodities as well as securities. ^{29} The Commission has previously found that the risks associated with fraud and manipulation are sufficiently mitigated if an ETP holds at least 80% of the investments in assets that do not raise concerns relating to fraud and manipulation. ^{30} In approving an ETP with a commodity as a primary investment, the Commission must find under Section 6(b)(5) that there are sufficient means to prevent fraud and manipulation. ^{31} Accordingly, the Commission finds that the requirement that the Fund will hold at least 85% of its investments in assets approved by the Commission to underlie an ETP as primary investments will enable adequate surveillance of the Shares on the Exchange.
^{29} See Amendment No. 1 at 34. See also supra notes 17-18 and accompanying text.
^{30} See, e.g., Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To List and Trade Shares of the SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF of the SSgA Active Trust, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77499 (Apr. 1, 2016), 81 FR 20428 (Apr. 7, 2016) (SR-BATS-2016-04) (approving the listing and trading of a series of Managed Fund Shares that would hold up to at least 80% of its net assets in a diversified portfolio of fixed income securities, with 20% limitations on certain holdings such as junior bank loans); Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Allow the JPMorgan Core Plus Bond ETF of the J.P. Morgan Exchange-Traded Fund Trust To Hold Certain Instruments in a Manner That May Not Comply With Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85701 (Apr. 22, 2019), 84 FR 17902 (Apr. 26, 2019) (SR-CboeBZX-2019-016) (approving the listing and trading of a series of Managed Fund Shares that could hold up to 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of its portfolio in asset backed securities and mortgage backed securities issued by private issuers); Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto Relating to the Use of Derivative Instruments by PIMCO Total Return Exchange Traded Fund, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72666 (July. 3, 2014), 79 FR 44224 (July 30, 2014) (SR-NYSEARCA-2013-122) (approving the listing and trading of a series of Managed Fund Shares that would invest under normal market circumstances at least 65% of its total assets in a diversified portfolio of fixed income derivatives, including over-the-counter derivatives); Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 7 Thereto, Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund Shares, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78397 (July 22, 2016), 81 FR 49320 (July 27, 2016) (SR-NYSEARCA-2015-110) (approving generic listing standards for managed fund shares allowing for up to 10% of the equity weight of the portfolio to consist of non-exchange-traded ADRs; up to 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the portfolio to consist of non-agency, non-government-sponsored entity, and privately-issued mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities components; up to 10% of the weight of holdings invested in futures, exchange-traded options, and listed swaps to consist of futures, options, and swaps which trade on markets that are not members of ISG or with which the Exchange does not have in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement; and up to 20% of the assets in the portfolio to be invested in OTC derivatives) (“Managed Fund Shares Order”). In the Managed Fund Shares Order, the Commission found that the 20% limitation on OTC derivatives “is sufficient to mitigate the risks associated with price manipulation because at least 80% of a Managed Fund Shares portfolio would consist of: Cash and cash equivalents; listed derivatives, of which 90% by portfolio weight would be traded on a principal market that is a member of ISG; and equity securities or fixed income instruments subject to numerous restrictions designed to prevent manipulation and ensure pricing transparency.” See Managed Fund Shares Order at 49326.
^{31} For example, as of the filing of the Amendment No. 1, 85% of the Fund's holdings would be in bitcoin and ether. In approving the ETPs with primary investments in bitcoin and ether, the Commission found that there were sufficient means to prevent fraud and manipulation of bitcoin and ether ETPs under Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act. See supra note 17.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, the Commission must approve a proposed rule change filed by a national securities exchange if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Exchange Act. ^{32} As such, based on the record before the Commission, the Commission finds that the Proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, including the requirement in Section 6(b)(5) ^{33} that the Exchange's rules be designed to “prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.” ^{34}
^{32} 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
^{33} 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
^{34} The Commission received one comment letter supporting the Proposal and stating that approving the Proposal would provide clear benefits to investors while promoting fair, orderly, and efficient markets. See Letter from Gregory E. Xethalis, General Counsel, Daniel A. Leonardo, Chief Compliance Officer & Deputy General Counsel, and Jay B. Stolkin, Deputy General Counsel, Multicoin Capital Management, LLC, dated Apr. 29, 2025. Another commenter contends that the Proposal should be disapproved because the Fund would hold XRP and Solana and details a number of arguments in favor of disapproval, including, among other things: neither XRP nor Solana has an established futures market; each of XRP and Solana has been allegedly classified as an unregistered security by the Commission; neither XRP nor Solana is truly decentralized; and reliable on-chain analytics are not widely available for either XRP or Solana. See Letter from Anonymous, dated Feb. 10, 2025. As discussed above, the Fund will limit the amount of assets that are not the primary investment underlying ETPs approved by the Commission, such as XRP and Solana, to 15% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio, and this limitation is consistent with similar limitations approved by the Commission with respect to ETP investments. See supra notes 30 and 31. In addition, although this commenter states that neither XRP nor Solana has an established futures market, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange currently lists and trades both XRP and Solana futures contracts. See https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/cryptocurrencies/xrp/xrp.html.
See also https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/cryptocurrencies/solana.html.

2. Exchange Act Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii)
The Proposal sets forth aspects of the Fund, including the availability of pricing information, transparency of portfolio holdings, and types of surveillance procedures, that are consistent with other ETPs that the Commission has approved. ^{35} This includes commitments regarding: the availability of quotation and last-sale information for the Shares; the availability on the Fund's website of certain information related to the Fund, including NAV; the dissemination of an intra-day indicative value by one or more major market data vendors, updated every 15 seconds throughout the Exchange's core trading session; the Exchange's surveillance procedures and ability to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares; the conditions under which the Exchange would implement trading halts and suspensions; and the requirements of registered market makers in the Shares. ^{36} In addition, the Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. ^{37} Further, the listing rules of the Exchange require that all statements and representations made in its filing regarding, among others, the description of the Fund's holdings, limitations on such holdings, and the applicability of the Exchange's listing rules specified in the filing, will constitute continued listing requirements. ^{38} Moreover, the Proposal states that: the Fund's Manager has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements; pursuant to obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements; and if the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures. ^{39}
^{35} See, e.g., Spot Bitcoin & Ether ETP Approval Order at 106709.
^{36} See Amendment No. 1 at 79-86.
^{37} See id. at 82.
^{38} See NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E, Commentary .03.
^{39} See Amendment No. 1 at 86.
The Commission therefore finds that the Proposal, as with other ETPs that the Commission has approved, ^{40} is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately, to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured, to safeguard material non-public information relating to the Fund's portfolio, and to ensure fair and orderly markets for the Shares. ^{41}
^{40} See Spot Bitcoin Approval Order, Spot Ether ETP Approval Order, and Spot Bitcoin & Ether ETP Approval Order.
^{41} A commenter states that recent events, such as the hack of crypto exchange Bybit, have exposed the risk that investors will suffer losses due to crypto hacks as well as to crypto assets' extreme volatility. Accordingly, this commenter believes that approving the Proposal would endanger investors. See Letter from Benjamin L. Schiffrin, Director of Securities Policy, Better Markets, Inc., dated Feb. 27, 2025. While the Commission acknowledges concerns relating to hacking and volatility, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, the Commission must approve a proposed rule change filed by a national securities exchange if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Exchange Act. See Exchange Act Section 19(b)(2)(C), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C). The Commission does not apply a “cannot be manipulated” standard; rather, the Commission examines whether a proposal meets the requirements of the Exchange Act. See, e.g., Spot Bitcoin ETP Approval Order at 3013 n.61. The Commission does not understand the Exchange Act to require that a particular product or market be immune from manipulation. Rather, the inquiry into whether the rules of an exchange are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, has long focused on the mechanisms in place for the detection and deterrence of fraud and manipulation. For the reasons described above, the Commission finds that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the Exchange Act, including the requirement in Section 6(b)(5) that the Exchange's rules be designed to “prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.”

IV. Accelerated Approval
The Commission finds good cause to approve the Proposal prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 1 ^{42} in the Federal Register . Amendment No. 1 proposed modifications to NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E (Trust Units), which modifications are either consistent with the current rule text or do not raise any novel regulatory issues. In addition, Amendment No. 1 clarified the description of the Fund, further described the terms of the Fund, and conformed various representations in the amended filing to the Exchange's listing standard for Trust Units and to representations that exchanges have made for other ETPs that the Commission has approved. ^{43} These changes do not raise any novel regulatory issues. The changes assist the Commission in evaluating the Proposal and in determining that it is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, as discussed above. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, ^{44} to approve the Proposal on an accelerated basis.
^{42} See supra note 3.
^{43} See supra Item III.B.2.
^{44} 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

V. Conclusion
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations and descriptions in the Proposal, which the Commission has evaluated as discussed above. ^{45} For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, ^{46} that the Proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) and Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act. ^{47}
^{45} In addition, the Shares of the Fund must comply with the requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E (Trust Units), as amended, to be listed and traded on the Exchange on an initial and a continuing basis.
^{46} 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
^{47} 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5); 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
It is therefore ordered , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, ^{48} that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEARCA-2024-87), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
^{48} 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. ^{49}
^{49} 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Data Collection Available for Public Comments

ACTION:
60-day notice and request for comments.

SUMMARY:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submission to OMB, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice complies with that requirement.

DATES:
Submit comments on or before September 5, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
Send all comments to Office of Manufacturing and Trade, Mina Wales, Mina.Wales@sba.gov, 409 3rd Street, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, Small Business Administration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Office of Manufacturing and Trade, Mina Wales, Mina.Wales@sba.gov, (202) 205-7180 and Shauniece Carter, Agency Clearance Officer, Shauniece.carter@sba.gov, (202) 935-6942.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The primary objective of the STEP Program Quarterly Performance Reporting Forms are to collect data on the quarterly progress of grantees of the SBA's State Trade and Export Promotion (STEP) program. These data will be used to understand how states have improved their trade and export activities and revenue. The STEP program has two primary objectives: (1) Increase the number of small businesses that are exporting and (2) increase the value of exports for small businesses that are currently exporting. To achieve these objectives, SBA provides state level grant recipients with funding for nine activities, including participation in foreign trade missions, design of marketing media, and trade show exhibitions. Data from the STEP Program Quarterly Performance Reporting Forms will provide SBA with critical information about the impact of various strategies used to advance trade and export activities in each state. These data will also provide an understanding of the specific ways in which funded activities meet SBA's goal of improving small business trade and export productivity. These data may inform strategies that can be replicated by other small businesses. These data are not currently being collected elsewhere and are critical to understanding the outcomes of STEP grantee activities.

Solicitation of Public Comments
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.

Summary of Information Collection
PRA Number: 3245-0413.
Title: STEP Program Quarterly Performance Reporting Forms.
Description of Respondents: State administrators in states that receive an SBA STEP Grant.
Form Number: N/A.
Total Estimated Annual Responses: 90.
Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 360 Hours.
Alethea Ten Eyck-Sanders,

Alternate Liaison Officer.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Transportation Project in Utah

AGENCY:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

ACTION:
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.

SUMMARY:
The FHWA, on behalf of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by UDOT and other Federal agencies that are final agency actions. These actions relate to the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) which proposes reconstruction of the diamond interchange at Interstate 15 (I-15) at Santaquin Main Street, ramp improvements, widening I-15 to three lanes in both directions from MP 238 to 250, widening and modifications on Main Street between 400 East and 900 East, and the construction of multi-use paths in Utah and Juab Counties, Utah.

DATES:
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of UDOT, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency actions on the listed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before December 4, 2025. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.

ADDRESSES:
The FONSI and additional project documents can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at: https://udotinput.utah.gov/i15santaquin or by contacting UDOT Environmental Services, 4501 South 2700 West, P.O. Box 148450 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-8450, during normal business hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time), Monday through Friday, except State holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tyler Allen, Environmental Program Manager; 801-997-0080; tylerallen@utah.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Effective January 17, 2017, and as subsequently renewed on May 26, 2022, the FHWA assigned, and the UDOT assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that UDOT and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, or approvals for the proposed improvement highway project. The actions by UDOT and other Federal agencies on the project, and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the FONSI approved on March 26, 2025, and in other project records for the listed project. The FONSI and other documents for the listed project are available by contacting UDOT at the address provided above.
The project subject to this notice is:
Project Location: The project limits include I-15 from MP 238-250 in Juab and Utah Counties, Utah.
Project Actions: This notice applies to the FONSI and all other Federal agency licenses, permits, or approvals for the listed project as of the issuance date of this notice including but not limited to the Section 4(f) Resource Programmatic Approval and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ]; Federal-Aid Highway Act (FAHA) [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128]; 23 CFR part 771.
2. Air: Clean Air Act (CAA) [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)], with the exception of project level conformity determinations [42 U.S.C. 7506].
3. Noise: Noise Control Act of 1972 [42 U.S.C. 4901-4918]; 23 CFR part 772.
4. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303]; 23 CFR part 774; Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) [54 U.S.C. 200302-200310].
5. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act (ESA) [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and 1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) [16 U.S.C. 703-712].
6. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [54 U.S.C. 3006101 et seq. ]; Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)-470(II)]; Preservation of Historical and Archaeological Data [54 U.S.C.312501-312508]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 18 U.S.C. 1170].
7. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000 d-2000d-1]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209].
8. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act (Section 319, Section 401, Section 404) [33 U.S.C. 1251-1387]; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-26]; Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401-406]; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271-1287]; Emergency Wetlands Resources Act [16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; Wetlands Mitigation, [23 U.S.C. 119(g) and 133(b)(3)]; Flood Disaster Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001-4130].
9. Hazardous Materials: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) [42 U.S.C. 9601-9675]; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) [42 U.S.C. 6901-6992(k)].
10. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)
(Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1)).
Issued on: June 25, 2025.
Ivan Marrero,

Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0147]
Qualification of Drivers: Skill Performance Evaluation Program; Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Application for Exemption Renewal

AGENCY:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:
Notice of provisional renewal of exemption; request for comments.

SUMMARY:
FMCSA announces its decision to provisionally renew an exemption for truck and bus drivers who are licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia and need a Skill Performance Evaluation (SPE) Certificate to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemption enables interstate CMV drivers who are licensed in Virginia and are subject to the Federal SPE certificate requirements to continue to fulfill the Federal requirements with a State-issued SPE certificate that qualifies such drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. The provisional exemption renewal is limited to six months. After a review of the public comments to this notice, FMCSA will issue a decision on whether the exemption should be renewed through July 3030.

DATES:
The provisional renewal of the exemption is effective from July 8, 2025, through July 8, 2030. Comments must be received on or before August 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA-2013-0147 by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further information.
• Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2013-0147). Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption renewal request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed under the “Department Wide System of Records Notices” at www.dot.gov/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are searchable by the name of the submitter and are posted without edit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Evangela Hollowell, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-2551, FMCSAMedical@dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations, (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.

A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2013-0147), 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 www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number (FMCSA-2013-0147) in keyword box, and click on this notice, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.
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.

B. Confidential Business Information (CBI)
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, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.

C. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, insert FMCSA-2013-0147 in the keyword box, select the document tab and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this notice, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Docket Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

II. Legal Basis
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including the applicant's safety analyses. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve 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 the decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If granted, the notice will identify the regulatory provision from which the applicant will be exempt and the effective period and will explain all terms and conditions of the exemption (49 CFR 381.315(c)(1)). If the exemption is denied, the notice will explain the reason for the denial (49 CFR 381.315(c)(2)). The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulatory Requirements
CMV drivers who are otherwise qualified to drive a CMV but are not physically qualified to drive under 49 CFR 391.49(b)(1) or (2) because of a loss or impairment of limbs may drive a CMV if FMCSA has granted an SPE certificate to that person under 49 CFR 391.49.

Application for Renewal of Exemption
In 2014, FMCSA initially granted the VA DMV's request for exemption to enable Virginia-licensed drivers subject to the Federal SPE certificate requirements under 49 CFR 391.49 to fulfill the Federal requirements with a State-issued SPE certificate (79 FR 38659, July 8, 2014). The exemption required the State-issued SPE certificate to be based on standards, processes, and procedures comparable to those used by FMCSA, and the State was required to maintain copies of all evaluation forms and certificates issued to allow FMCSA to conduct periodic reviews of the State's program. Virginia-licensed drivers who receive the State-issued SPE certificate are allowed to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. The exemption contained specific terms and conditions to ensure that the VA DMV maintained an equivalent level of safety to the Federal SPE process.
FMCSA renewed the exemption on the same terms and conditions for a 2-year period from July 9, 2016, to July 9, 2018 (81 FR 44674, July 8, 2016). FMCSA renewed the exemption again for a 5-year period, from July 8, 2018, to July 8, 2023 (84 FR 3532, Feb. 12, 2019). FMCSA most recently renewed the exemption for a 2-year period, from July 8, 2023, through July 7, 2025 (88 FR 43065, July 6, 2023).
In its 2023 renewal request on behalf of the exempted drivers, the VA DMV noted that the exemption allows trained staff from the Commonwealth of Virginia to review applications and conduct SPEs for Virginia commercial driver's license (CDL) holders and the Virginia DMV Commissioner to approve SPE certificates. It noted that the application package mirrored the package otherwise required by FMCSA for SPE applications. The VA DMV uses an identical process and identical standards to process SPE applications. It further noted that, “Virginia DMV staff assigned to review SPE application packages are medical professionals (licensed practical nurses and Registered Nurses).” In addition, it stated that the Medical Review staff receive FMCSA training on how to conduct a thorough review of the SPE application information and that new staff are required to go through an extensive orientation. It noted that the nurse evaluators and the overseeing Healthcare Compliance Officer (Registered Nurse) have all participated in training conducted by FMCSA or will have recently attended the training provided by FMCSA.
Additionally, Medical Review staff forward those drivers who have met the Federal criteria for an SPE certificate to the Driver Licensing Quality Assurance (DLQA) staff to conduct the SPEs. The DLQA examiners hold Class A CDLs and have completed the FMCSA training required to conduct evaluations.
The VA DMV noted that DLQA examiners are positioned across VA DMV's eight districts and each district has a CDL test site that can be used for the non-driving and off-highway portion of the SPE, and each district has a planned test route for the on-highway portion of the SPE. It stated this minimizes the wait times for SPE applicants.
Finally, the VA DMV noted that it has participated in audit reviews, record reviews, and submits regular reports to FMCSA as part of ongoing quality assurance process.
The VA DMV noted that its program has contributed to Virginia's commitment to being the most military and veteran-friendly state in the nation through the Troops to Trucks Program ( www.dmvnow.com/troopstotrucks ). And it stated that expediting the SPE process assists wounded veterans and military personnel with transition to civilian employment and reduces the time between discharge and employment for many wounded veterans “while addressing the trucking industry's shortage of qualified licensed commercial truck drivers.”

IV. Equivalent Level Safety
Virginia's SPE program is essentially identical to the current FMCSA SPE program and is subject to oversight by FMCSA to ensure that VA's processes are equivalent to FMCSA's SPE processes. Virginia continues to adhere to the application process modeled on the FMCSA process. State personnel who conduct the SPE complete the same training as FMCSA personnel conducting SPEs and follow the same procedures and testing criteria used by FMCSA. FMCSA has conducted monitoring and SPE program reviews and Virginia continues to maintain records of applications, testing, and certificates issued for periodic review by FMCSA. Based on FMCSA's analyses of the applications and the program, FMCSA has determined that continuing the exemption for the class of exempted drivers and continuing to allow the VA DMV to issue SPE certificates for Virginia residents will provide an equivalent level of safety as provided by FMCSA issuing the SPE certificates.
FMCSA is unaware of any evidence of a degradation of safety attributable to the current exemption. There is no indication of an adverse impact on safety under the terms and conditions specified in the initial exemption or exemption renewals. FMCSA concludes that provisionally extending the exemption for a period of six months, under the terms and conditions listed below, will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.

V. Grant of Provisional Renewal of Exemption
FMCSA provisionally renews the exemption for interstate Virginia-licensed drivers to be relieved of the requirement for an SPE certificate issued by FMCSA under 49 CFR 391.49 for a period of 6 months subject to the terms and conditions of this decision and the absence of public comments that would cause the Agency to terminate the exemption under Section D below.

A. Applicability of Exemption
Under this exemption, the VA DMV is permitted to issue an SPE certificate for interstate drivers who have experienced an impairment or loss of a limb and are licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia is subject to the following terms and conditions:

B. Terms and Conditions
1. VA DMV's SPE program must be substantially similar to the current requirements in 49 CFR 391.49.
2. VA DMV must maintain an application process modeled on the FMCSA process and submit information concerning the application process to FMCSA's Medical Programs Division for review, as requested.
3. State personnel who conduct SPEs must complete SPE training identical to that of FMCSA personnel currently administering the Federal SPE program.
4. The SPE and scoring for the SPE must be done using the same procedures and testing criteria used by FMCSA.
5. VA DMV must maintain records of applications, testing, and certificates issued for periodic review by FMCSA.
6. VA DMV must submit a monthly report to FMCSA listing the names and license number of each driver tested by the State and the result of the SPE (pass or fail).
7. As requested, the VA DMV must provide records required to be retained under this exemption and provide any other information necessary for FMCSA to evaluate the VA DMV's compliance with the terms and conditions of this exemption.
8. Each driver who receives a State-issued SPE certificate must carry a copy of the certificate when driving for presentation to authorized Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials.

C. Preemption
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption. An exemption granted under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) preempts State laws and regulations that conflict with or are inconsistent with the exemption. The decision to grant the exemption amounts to automatic Federal ratification of the State-issued SPE Certificate and therefore prohibits other jurisdictions from requiring a separate FMCSA-issued SPE. The State-issued certificate must be treated as if it had been issued by FMCSA. Virginia-licensed drivers who receive the State-issued SPE certificate are allowed to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

D. Termination
If the Agency determines that safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption. The exemption will also be revoked if the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313, or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

VI. Request for Comments
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the application for an exemption renewal. 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 Addresses section of this notice. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket for new material.
Sue Lawless,

Assistant Administrator.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket Number MARAD-2025-0096]
Deepwater Port License Application: ST LNG Deepwater Port Development Project

AGENCY:
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION:
Notice of application.

SUMMARY:
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) announce they have received an application from ST LNG, LLC (ST LNG or Applicant) for the licensing of a deepwater port and that the application for the ST LNG Deepwater Port Development Project contains information sufficient to commence processing. This notice summarizes the Applicant's plans and the procedures that will be considered during the application review process.

DATES:
The Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, (the Act) requires at least one public hearing on this application to be held in the designated Adjacent Coastal State (ACS) not later than 240 days after publication of this notice and a decision on the application not later than 90 days after the final public hearing.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0096 by any one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Search the docket number and follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: The Docket Management Facility is located at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. Documents may be delivered between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on federal holidays.
Note: If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, and/or a telephone number in a cover page so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and specific docket number. All comments received will be posted without change to the docket at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Brian Barton, Maritime Administration, telephone 202-366-0302, email: Brian.Barton@dot.gov, or Mr. Patrick Clark, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1427, email: Patrick.W.Clark@uscg.mil. For questions regarding viewing the Docket, call Docket Operations, telephone: 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Receipt of Application
On June 9, 2025, MARAD and USCG received an application from the Applicant for all Federal authorizations required for a license to own, construct, and operate a deepwater port for the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as authorized by the Act, and implemented under 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 148, 149, and 150. After a coordinated completeness review by MARAD, USCG, and cooperating Federal agencies, the application is deemed complete and contains information sufficient to initiate processing.

Background
The Act defines a deepwater port as any fixed or floating manmade structure other than a vessel, or any group of such structures, that are located beyond State seaward boundaries and used or intended for use as a port or terminal for the transportation, storage, and further handling of oil or natural gas for transportation to, or from, any State. A deepwater port includes all components and equipment, including pipelines, pumping or compressor stations, service platforms, buoys, mooring lines, and similar facilities that are proposed as part of a deepwater port to the extent they are located seaward of the high-water mark.
The Secretary of Transportation delegated to the Maritime Administrator authorities related to licensing deepwater ports (49 CFR 1.93(h)). Statutory and regulatory requirements for processing applications and licensing appear in 33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. and 33 CFR part 148. Each application is considered on its merits.
In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1504(f), MARAD and USCG, working in cooperation with other involved Federal agencies and departments, shall comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), among others, participate in the processing of deepwater port applications and assist in the NEPA process. Each agency may participate in scoping and/or other public meeting(s) and may incorporate the MARAD/USCG environmental impact review for purposes of their jurisdictional permitting processes, to the extent applicable. Substantive comments related to this deepwater port application addressed to the EPA, USACE, or other Federal agencies should note the Federal docket number, MARAD-2025-0096. Each comment will be incorporated into the Department of Transportation (DOT) docket and considered as the environmental impact analysis is developed to ensure consistency with the NEPA process. All connected actions, permits, approvals, and authorizations will be considered during the processing of the ST LNG deepwater port license application.
MARAD, in issuing this Notice of Application pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1504(c), must designate as an ACS any coastal state which (A) would be directly connected by pipeline to a deepwater port as proposed in an application, or (B) would be located within 15 nautical miles of any such proposed deepwater port (33 U.S.C. 1508(a)(1)). Pursuant to the criteria provided in the Act, Texas is the designated ACS for this application. Any other State with an interest relating to the deepwater port proposed in an application will have the opportunity to make its views known to, and will be given full consideration by, MARAD regarding the location, construction, and operation of the deepwater port.
The Act directs that at least one public hearing take place in each ACS, which in this case is Texas. Additional public meetings may be conducted to solicit comments on the environmental analysis to include public scoping meetings or meetings to discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared in accordance with NEPA.
MARAD, in coordination with USCG, will publish additional Federal Register notices with information regarding these public meeting(s) and hearing(s) and other procedural milestones, including the NEPA environmental impact review. The Maritime Administrator's decision, and other key documents, will be filed in the public docket for the application at docket number MARAD-2025-0096.
The Act imposes a strict timeline for processing an application. When MARAD and USCG determine that an application is complete ( i.e., contains information sufficient to commence processing), the Act directs that all public hearings on the application be concluded within 240 days from the date the Notice of Application is published.
Within 45 days after the final hearing, the Governor of the ACS, which in this case is the Governor of Texas, may notify MARAD of their approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the application. If such approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval is not provided to the Maritime Administrator by that time, approval shall be conclusively presumed. MARAD may not issue a license without the explicit or presumptive approval of the Governor of the ACS. During this 45-day period, the Governor may also notify MARAD of inconsistencies between the application and State programs relating to environmental protection, land and water use, and coastal zone management. In this case, MARAD may condition the license to make it consistent with such state programs (33 U.S.C. 1508(b)(1)(D)). MARAD will not consider written approvals or disapprovals of the application from the Governor of the ACS until commencement of the 45-day period after the final public hearing is completed. The Maritime Administrator must render a decision on the application within 90 days after the final hearing.
Should a favorable record of decision be rendered, and a license be issued, MARAD may include specific conditions related to design, construction, operations, environmental permitting, monitoring and mitigation, and financial responsibilities. If a license is issued, USCG, in coordination with other agencies as appropriate, would review and approve the deepwater port's engineering, design, and construction; operations/security procedures; waterways management and regulated navigation areas; maritime safety and security requirements; risk assessment; and compliance with domestic and international laws and regulations for vessels that may call on the port. The deepwater port would be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable codes and standards.
In addition, the installation of pipelines and other structures may require permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which are administered by the USACE.
Permits from the EPA may also be required pursuant to the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and the Clean Water Act, as amended.

Summary of the Application
The application proposes the ownership, construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of the ST LNG deepwater port terminal to be located approximately 10.4 nautical miles (19.2 kilometers) offshore Matagorda, Texas. When fully realized, the project would involve four 2.1 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) liquefaction systems installed in the Brazos Outer Continental Shelf Lease Block 476 (BA-476), in approximately 65 to 72 feet of water. The proposed ST LNG deepwater port would export LNG up to 8.4 MTPA.
The proposed ST LNG deepwater port would consist of fixed and floating components. These components would include a 5.5-mile, 30-inch pipeline lateral with a connection hub, four feeder lines to the connection hub, four gas treatment platforms, four liquefaction platforms, four accommodation and utility platforms, four LNG transfer platforms, thirty-six mooring dolphins, four converted LNG carriers, and three tugs.
The LNG would be loaded onto standard LNG carriers with cargo capacities between 125,000 and 180,000 cubic meters (m ^3 ) (average expected size is 146,000 m ^3 ) for the export of LNG, including to Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and non-FTA nations.
The project would be completed in four phases. Phase 1 construction would include three large platforms (a gas treatment platform, an LNG liquefaction platform, and an accommodations and utility platform), one LNG transfer platform, nine mooring dolphins, one floating storage unit (FSU), and interconnected lateral pipelines. Each phase would produce 2.1 MTPA of LNG.
The feed gas supply to the project would originate from the Tres Palacios Natural Gas Storage and Trading Hub and the Williams Markham Gas Processing Plant in Texas through the existing Transco 30-inch pipeline. The gas would be transported to the project via a new 5.5-mile, 30-inch lateral pipeline to an interconnection hub at the deepwater port. From the hub, four feeder lines would transport the gas to each phase of the deepwater port.
For more information, please contact either Mr. Brian Barton, MARAD, or Mr. Patrick Clark, USCG, as listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
(Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.; 49 CFR 1.93(h).)
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr.

Secretary, Maritime Administration.
90
127
Monday, July 7, 2025
Rules and Regulations
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 52

Air Plan Approval; California; Revised Format for Nonregulatory Provisions; Final Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0527; FRL-12792-01-R9]
Air Plan Approval; California; Revised Format for Nonregulatory Provisions

AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:
Final rule; administrative change.

SUMMARY:
Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking another action in a series of actions to revise the format of the former “Identification of plan” section for the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Specifically, the EPA is adding the nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures to the “Identification of plan—in part” section that the EPA established to provide for the phased transition of the California SIP to the revised format. The nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures affected by this format revision have been previously submitted by the State of California and approved by the EPA. This action is the third in a series of actions intended to change the format for the entire California SIP.

DATES:
This rule is effective on July 7, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0527. Nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory SIP materials are available for inspection by appointment at Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. For information on the availability of this material at the EPA Regional Office, please contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kira Wiesinger, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 972-3827; email address: wiesinger.kira@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA. This supplementary information section is organized as follows:

Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Public Comments
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), each State is required to have a State implementation plan (SIP) that contains, among other things, the control measures and strategies which will be used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms. The control measures and strategies must be formally adopted by each State after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them. They are then submitted to the EPA as requested SIP revisions on which EPA must formally act.
The SIP is a dynamic document that can be revised by the State as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the State. Therefore, EPA must periodically take action on State SIP submissions containing new and/or revised regulations or other materials in order to make them part of the federally-approved SIP. In May 1972, the EPA approved, with certain exceptions, the initial SIPs for 50 States, four territories and the District of Columbia. ^1 Since 1972, each State and territory has submitted numerous SIP revisions, either on their own initiative or because they were required to as a result of various amendments to the CAA or EPA regulations. The EPA codifies its approvals and disapprovals of SIPs and SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 52 (“Approval and promulgation of implementation plans”).
^1 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). The EPA approved an additional SIP—for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands—on November 10, 1986 (51 FR 40799).
Within 40 CFR part 52, there are 58 subparts (subparts A through FFF). Subpart A contains general requirements applicable to all States and territories, while subparts B through DDD and subpart FFF contain requirements that are specific to a given State or territory. Subpart EEE contains historical information pertaining to EPA action on SIP material originally submitted by States to the National Air Pollution Control Administration (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) in 1970.
Until 1997, the first or second section of each subpart within 40 CFR part 52 (other than subparts A and EEE) was called “Identification of plan.” This section summarized State-developed requirements which the EPA has approved as part of a given SIP since May 31, 1972, and was amended by adding new paragraphs for each new approval of a State SIP revision submission. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), the EPA established a new format for the “Identification of plan” sections assigned to each subpart in 40 CFR part 52 (except A and EEE). With the new format, revised “Identification of plan” sections contain five paragraphs: (a) Purpose and scope, (b) Incorporation by reference, (c) EPA-approved regulations, (d) EPA-approved source-specific requirements, and (e) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures. “Nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures” refers to such items as transportation control measures, certain statutory provisions, control strategies, and monitoring networks. In our May 1997 rule, we indicated that the EPA would begin to phase in the new format on a State-by-State basis. Please see our May 1997 rule for more information concerning the revised format for SIPs.
The California SIP is identified in subpart F (“California”) of part 52, and the “Identification of plan” section was designated as 40 CFR 52.220. Given the size of the California SIP, the EPA is revising the format of the California SIP in a phased manner. On May 26, 2016 (81 FR 33397), we took the first action to revise the format of the “Identification of plan” section in subpart F in accordance with the revised format described above. Through that first action, we revised the heading of § 52.220 to read, “Identification of plan—in part,” and added an introductory paragraph to convey our division of the California “Identification of plan” section into two sections:
• Amended 40 CFR 52.220, which would continue for the time being to function as it has in the past to list past and newly-approved air district rules, local ordinances, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions and which lists State statutes and State regulations approved on or prior to April 1, 2016; and
• New 40 CFR 52.220a (“Identification of plan—in part”), which lists the State statutes and State regulations approved as part of the California SIP as of April 1, 2016, using the new table format.
This meant that subsequent EPA approvals of air district rules, local ordinances, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions would continue to be promulgated in 40 CFR 52.220 using the paragraph format whereas subsequent EPA approvals of State statutes and State regulations would be promulgated in 40 CFR 52.220a using the table format.
Our phased approach to converting the format of the California SIP anticipated that, over time, as the EPA completes further rulemaking actions to convert the format of the California SIP, 40 CFR 52.220a will include a growing number of air district rules, local ordinances, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions. Once the conversion process is completed, the EPA will redesignate 40 CFR 52.220a as 40 CFR 52.220 and rename it simply “Identification of plan.” At that point, all subsequent actions by the EPA to approve California SIP revisions will be promulgated using the new table format.
On June 4, 2025 (90 FR 23618), the EPA took a second action to revise the format of the California SIP by converting the format for local ordinances and air district rules approved on or prior to April 17, 2025, for the following air districts: Amador Air District, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AQMD), Bay Area AQMD, Butte County AQMD, Calaveras County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Colusa County APCD, Eastern Kern APCD, and El Dorado County AQMD. In this third action to convert the format of the California SIP, we are revising the format of the California SIP by converting the nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures portion of the California SIP.

II. Public Comments
The EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This action simply reformats and recodifies provisions that are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs.
Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where notice and public procedure are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” for this action because the EPA is merely reformatting and recodifying existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by clearly identifying the current nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures of the California SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action merely addresses administrative requirements related to previously approved State law found to meet Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those previously approved into the SIP and already imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is an administrative action related to State program approval;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This action simply reformats and recodifies provisions that are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. 5 U.S.C. 802(2). As stated previously, the EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the basis for that finding, and established an effective date of July 7, 2025. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the California SIP compilation had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, the EPA believes judicial review of this action under section 307(b)(1) is not available.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon oxides, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 20, 2025.
Cheree D. Peterson,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
§ 52.220
Identification of plan—in part.
This section identifies the local and regional air district rules, local ordinances, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory materials and quasi-regulatory measures submitted by the State of California and approved as part of the California State implementation plan. This section also identifies California statutes and State regulations submitted by the State of California and approved as part of the California State implementation plan on or prior to April 1, 2016. New or amended California statutes and State regulations approved after April 1, 2016, are identified in § 52.220a. New or amended local ordinances approved after April 17, 2025, are identified in § 52.220a. New or amended air district rules approved after April 17, 2025, are identified in § 52.220a for the following air districts: Amador Air District, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Butte County Air Quality Management District, Calaveras County Air Pollution Control District, Colusa County Air Pollution Control District, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District, and El Dorado County Air Quality Management District. Nonregulatory materials and quasi-regulatory measures approved after July 3, 2025, are identified in § 52.220a.
* * * * *
3. Section 52.220a is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 52.220a
Identification of plan—in part.
* * * * *
(e) EPA-approved California nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures.
Table 1—General Provisions of California State Implementation Plan (SIP); Infrastructure and Regional Haze SIPs; Materials Related to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program; and Compliance Schedules
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Explanation
General Provisions
Part I—General Plan | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. Includes cover page and table of contents. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Chapter 1—Summary | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Chapter 2—Statewide Perspective | Statewide | December 29, 1978 | August 11, 1980, 45 FR 53136 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(46)(i).
Chapter 2—Description of State | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Redesignation of AQCR's in California | Statewide | September 11, 1978 | January 16, 1981, 46 FR 3883 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(61).
Air quality maintenance area designations | Statewide | July 12, 1974 | September 9, 1975, 40 FR 41942; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(18).
Chapter 3—Legal Authority of the California SIP | Statewide | March 16, 1979 | August 11, 1980, 45 FR 53136 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(48).
Chapter 3—Emissions Inventory | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Emission inventory | Statewide | April 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(3).
Chapter 4—California Air Quality Control Strategies | Statewide | May 23, 1979 | September 26, 1980, 45 FR 63843 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(60).
Chapter 4—Air Quality Surveillance | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Information (Non-regulatory) regarding air quality surveillance | Statewide | July 19, 1972 | September 22, 1972, 37 FR 19812; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(7).
Air quality data | Statewide | April 10, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(1).
Air quality data | Statewide | April 26, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(4).
| Air quality data | Statewide | May 5, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(5).
Commitments by the Bay Area AQMD, Fresno County APCD, Kern County APCD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, Sacramento County APCD, San Diego County APCD, Santa Barbara County APCD, South Coast AQMD, and Ventura County APCD to carry out public notification programs as required by section 127 of the Clean Air Act and in accordance with EPA guidance | Bay Area AQMD, Fresno County APCD, Kern County APCD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, Sacramento County APCD, San Diego County APCD, Santa Barbara County APCD, South Coast AQMD, and Ventura County APCD | January 22, 1981 | January 22, 1982, 47 FR 3110 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(99).
Chapter 5—Ambient Air Quality Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Chapter 6—Control Strategy and Its Effects | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Report on status of regulations | Statewide | April 19, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(2).
Chapter 8—Organization and Resources | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
County of Riverside, Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 77-362, December 1977 | Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Riverside County | August 11, 1980 | June 9, 1982, 47 FR 25013 | Revision to the California SIP that adds the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Riverside County into the South Coast AQMD. Effective December 1, 1977. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(107).
South Coast AQMD Resolution 82-23 | Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County | February 3, 1983 | November 18, 1983, 48 FR 52451 | Resolution to include the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County within South Coast AQMD jurisdiction. Adopted on July 9, 1982. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(127)(vii)(A).
South Coast AQMD Resolution 82-35 | Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County | February 3, 1983 | November 18, 1983, 48 FR 52451 | Resolution to adopt rules and regulations for the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County. Adopted on October 15, 1982. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(127)(vii)(A).
Antelope Valley APCD, Resolution No. 97-01 dated July 1, 1997 | Antelope Valley portion of Los Angeles County | March 10, 1998 | December 31, 1998, 63 FR 72197 | The resolution is titled “A Resolution of the Governing Board of the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District Affirming the Rules and Regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Until the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District Adopts New Rules and Regulations that Supersede Them.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(254)(i)(E)( 1 ).
Chapter 20—Compliance | Statewide | December 29, 1978 | August 11, 1980, 45 FR 53136 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(46)(ii).
Chapter 22—Air Quality Monitoring by State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) | Statewide | December 31, 1979 | August 10, 1981, 46 FR 40512 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(90)(i).
Letter and attachments from James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, November 10, 1993 | South Coast, Southeast Desert, Sacramento Metro, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley and Ventura County 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas | November 10, 1993 | September 28, 2017, 82 FR 45191 | Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) SIP Revision. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(495)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Chapter 23—Source Surveillance | Statewide | December 29, 1978 | August 11, 1980, 45 FR 53136 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(46)(iii).
| Addendum to Chapter 23—Source Surveillance | Statewide | March 29, 1979 | August 11, 1980, 45 FR 53136 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(49).
Chapter 24—Resources | Statewide | December 29, 1978 | August 11, 1980, 45 FR 53136 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(46)(iv).
Chapter 25—Intergovernmental Relations | Statewide | December 29, 1978 | August 11, 1980, 45 FR 53136 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(46)(v).
Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program | Statewide | November 13, 1992 | March 22, 1995, 60 FR 15061 | Program developed to address CAA section 507. Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 15, 1992. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(200)(i)(A).
Part XIII—Appendix I (Description of California Air Basins in 1968 (Federal Air Quality Control Regions) and Description of California Air Basins in 1971) | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Part XIII—Appendix III (Local Air Pollution Control Officials in California) | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Part XIII—Appendix IV (Emission Factors) | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Part XIII—Appendix V (Methods for Estimating Control Requirements) | Statewide | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Infrastructure SIPs
Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Lead Standard Infrastructure Requirements | Statewide | October 6, 2011 | April 1, 2016, 81 FR 18766 | Referred to as the 2011 Pb Infrastructure SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(466)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 11-28, dated September 22, 2011 | Statewide | October 6, 2011 | April 1, 2016, 81 FR 18766 | Resolution adopting the “Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Lead Standard Infrastructure Requirements.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(466)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Lead SIP | Statewide | November 19, 1979 | June 30, 1982, 47 FR 28374 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(78)(ii).
Amendments to “Chapter 27—California Lead Control Strategy” | Statewide | April 8, 1983 | November 28, 1983, 48 FR 53558 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(139).
Amendments to “Chapter 27—California Lead Control Strategy” | Statewide | February 22, 1984 | July 12, 1984, 49 FR 28406 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(152).
Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Nitrogen Dioxide Standard Infrastructure Requirements | Statewide | December 12, 2012 | April 1, 2016, 81 FR 18766 | Referred to as the 2012 NO 2 Infrastructure SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(467)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 12-34, dated November 15, 2012 | Statewide | December 12, 2012 | April 1, 2016, 81 FR 18766 | Resolution adopting the “Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Nitrogen Dioxide Standard Infrastructure Requirements.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(467)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D) | Statewide | January 19, 2016 | December 19, 2018, 83 FR 65093 | Referred to as “California Transport Plan.” Adopted by California Air Resources Board on December 17, 2015. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(512)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Infrastructure SIP | Statewide | March 6, 2014 | April 1, 2016, 81 FR 18766 | Also referred to as the 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(468)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 14-1, dated January 23, 2014 | Statewide | March 6, 2014 | April 1, 2016, 81 FR 18766 | Resolution adopting the “California Infrastructure SIP.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(468)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Infrastructure SIP Revision for the 0.070 parts per million Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard, release date September 27, 2018, excluding Attachments 1, 3, and 4 | Statewide | October 1, 2018 | March 30, 2021, 86 FR 16533 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(551)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard and PM 2.5 to satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State of California (September 21, 2007), as modified by Attachment A and submitted as Appendix C to the 2007 State Strategy (“2007 Transport SIP”), at page 5 (“Evaluation of Interference with Other States' Measures Required to Meet Regional Haze and Visibility SIP Requirements”) | Statewide | November 16, 2007 | June 14, 2011, 76 FR 34608 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(386)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 07-28, dated September 27, 2007 | Statewide | November 16, 2007 | June 14, 2011, 76 FR 34608 | Resolution adopting the “2007 State Implementation Plan for the 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (“2007 State Strategy”). See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(386)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2007 Transport SIP at pages 19-20 (Attachment A) (“Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment or Interference with Maintenance of Attainment Standards in Another State”) | Statewide | November 16, 2007 | June 15, 2011, 76 FR 34872 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(386)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
| 2007 Transport SIP at pages 21-22 (Attachment A) (“Evaluation of interference with Prevention of Significant Deterioration Measures of any other State”) | Statewide | November 16, 2007 | August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48002 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(386)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP, submitted as Appendix B to the 2007 State Strategy, and “Legal Authority and Other Requirements,” submitted as Appendix G to the 2007 State Strategy | Statewide | November 16, 2007 | April 1, 2016, 81 FR 18766 | Collectively, these plans are referred to as “2007 Infrastructure SIP”. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(386)(ii)(A)( 5 ).
Regional Haze SIPs
California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report | Statewide | June 16, 2014 | April 1, 2015, 80 FR 17327 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on May 22, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(454)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 14-15, dated May 22, 2014 | Statewide | June 16, 2014 | April 1, 2015, 80 FR 17327 | Resolution approving the “California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(454)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
The “California Regional Haze Plan”, adopted on January 22, 2009, as amended and supplemented on September 8, 2009, in a letter from James N. Goldstene, California Air Resources Board to Laura Yoshii, EPA, and as amended and supplemented on June 9, 2010, in a letter from James N. Goldstene, California Air Resources Board to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA | Statewide | March 16, 2009 | June 14, 2011, 76 FR 34608 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on January 22, 2009. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(387)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 09-4, dated January 22, 2009 | Statewide | March 16, 2009 | June 14, 2011, 76 FR 34608 | Resolution adopting the “California Regional Haze Plan”. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(387)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
PSD-Related Materials
Letter dated December 16, 2014, from Larry R. Allen, San Luis Obispo County APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9 regarding clarifications of District Rule 220 and 40 CFR 51.166 | San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District | December 16, 2014 | November 12, 2015, 80 FR 69880 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(441)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter dated November 25, 2014, from David Van Mullem, Santa Barbara County APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding clarifications of District Rule 810 and 40 CFR 51.166 | Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District | November 25, 2014 | November 12, 2015, 80 FR 69880 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(442)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter dated December 18, 2014, from Christopher D. Brown, Feather River AQMD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding clarifications of District Rule 10.10 and 40 CFR 51.166 | Feather River Air Quality Management District | December 18, 2014 | November 12, 2015, 80 FR 69880 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(429)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter dated November 13, 2014, from Theodore D. Schade, Great Basin Unified APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding clarifications of District Rule 221 and 40 CFR 51.166 | Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District | November 13, 2014 | November 12, 2015, 80 FR 69880 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(428)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter dated April 15, 2015, from Phillip L. Kiddoo, Great Basin Unified APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding additional clarifications of District Rule 221 and 40 CFR 51.166 | Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District | April 15, 2015 | November 12, 2015, 80 FR 69880 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(428)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Letter dated November 13, 2014, from W. James Wagoner, Butte County AQMD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding clarifications of District Rule 1107 and 40 CFR 51.166 | Butte County Air Quality Management District | November 13, 2014 | November 12, 2015, 80 FR 69880 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(428)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Letter dated April 8, 2015, from W. James Wagoner, Butte County AQMD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding additional clarifications of District Rule 1107 and 40 CFR 51.166 | Butte County Air Quality Management District | April 8, 2015 | November 12, 2015, 80 FR 69880 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(428)(ii)(B)( 2 ).
Letter dated August 15, 2012, from Mohsen Nazemi, South Coast AQMD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding Clarifications for Rule 1714—Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Greenhouse Gases | South Coast Air Quality Management District | August 15, 2012 | December 10, 2012, 77 FR 73320 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(421)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter dated August 7, 2012, from Mat Ehrhardt, Yolo-Solano AQMD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 40 CFR 51.166 | Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District | August 7, 2012 | December 10, 2012, 77 FR 73316 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(420)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter dated July 19, 2012, from David L. Jones, Eastern Kern APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 40 CFR 51.166 | Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District | July 19, 2012 | December 10, 2012, 77 FR 73316 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(419)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
| Letter dated August 21, 2012, from David L. Jones, Eastern Kern APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2) | Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District | August 21, 2012 | December 10, 2012, 77 FR 73316 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(419)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Letter dated May 18, 2012, from David Warner, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding Clarifications of District Rule 2410 and 40 CFR 51.166 | San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District | May 18, 2012 | October 26, 2012, 77 FR 65305 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(415)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter dated July 10, 2012, from Brad Poiriez, Imperial County APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding Clarifications of District Rule 904 and 40 CFR 51.166 | Imperial County Air Pollution Control District | July 10, 2012 | December 10, 2012, 77 FR 73316 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(411)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter dated August 21, 2012, from Brad Poiriez, Imperial County APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding Clarifications of District Rule 904 and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2) | Imperial County Air Pollution Control District | August 21, 2012 | December 10, 2012, 77 FR 73316 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(411)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Letter dated July 6, 2012, from Thomas J. Christofk, Placer County APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding Clarifications of District Rule 518 and 40 CFR 51.166 | Placer County Air Pollution Control District | July 6, 2012 | December 10, 2012, 77 FR 73316 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(391)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter dated August 20, 2012, from Thomas Christofk, Placer County APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, regarding Clarifications of District Rule 518 and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2) | Placer County Air Pollution Control District | August 20, 2012 | December 10, 2012, 77 FR 73316 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(391)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Compliance Schedules
Compliance schedules | Source-Specific | December 27, 1973 | January 29, 1975, 40 FR 4267; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(8).
Compliance schedules | Source-Specific | February 19, 1974 | January 29, 1975, 40 FR 4267; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(9).
Compliance schedules | Source-Specific | April 22, 1974 | January 29, 1975, 40 FR 4267; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(10).
Compliance schedules | Source-Specific | June 7, 1974 | January 29, 1975, 40 FR 4267; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(11).
Compliance schedules | Source-Specific | June 19, 1974 | March 28, 1975, 40 FR 14069; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(12).
Compliance schedules | Source-Specific | September 4, 1974 | March 28, 1975, 40 FR 14069; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(13).
Compliance schedules | Source-Specific | September 19, 1974 | March 28, 1975, 40 FR 14069; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(14).
Compliance schedules | Source-Specific | October 18, 1974 | March 28, 1975, 40 FR 14069; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(15).
| Compliance schedules | Source-Specific | December 4, 1974 | July 15, 1975, 40 FR 29712; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(16).
Compliance schedules | Source-Specific | January 13, 1975 | July 15, 1975, 40 FR 29712; re-codified at 41 FR 8956 (March 2, 1976) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(17).
Table 2—1994 California Ozone Plan—State and Local Measures; Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program SIPs; Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Provisions and Related Test Methods; Base Year Emission Inventory and VMT Offset Demonstration Ozone SIPs; Pesticide-Related SIPs; Multi-Area Ozone Plan Elements; and Multi-Area Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plans
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Explanation
1994 California Ozone Plan—State and Local Measures
Long Term Measures, Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles (Measure M2), Off-Road Industrial Equipment (Diesel), Consumer Products Long-Term Program (Measure CP4), and Additional Measures (Possible Market-Incentive Measures and Possible Operational Measures Applicable to Heavy-Duty Vehicles), as contained in “The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume II: The Air Resources Board's Mobile Source and Consumer Products Elements” | Statewide | November 15, 1994 | August 21, 1995, 60 FR 43379 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on November 15, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)( 4 ).
Mid-Term Measures, Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) requirement for Medium-Duty Vehicles (Measure M3), Heavy-Duty Vehicles NO X regulations (Measure M5), Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles lower emission standards (Measure M8), Industrial Equipment, Gas & LPG-3-way catalyst technology (Measure M11), Mid-Term Consumer Products (Measure CP-2), as contained in The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume II: The Air Resources Board's Mobile Source and Consumer Products Elements | Statewide | November 15, 1994 | December 14, 1995, 60 FR 64126 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on November 15, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)( 5 ).
State control measures: Accelerated Retirement of LDV's (Measure M1), Early Introduction of 2g/bhp-hr Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles (Measure M4), Accelerated Retirement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles (Measure M7), Aerosol Paints (Measure CP3), and California Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Plan, as contained in “The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume II: The Air Resources Board's Mobile Source and Consumer Products Elements,” and tables of local agency control measures and revisions to local Rate-of-Progress plan elements as contained in “The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume IV: “Local Plans” | Statewide | November 15, 1994 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on November 15, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)( 6 ).
Letter dated June 13, 1996, from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp, including “Corrections to State and Local Measures” (Attachment A) and “Summary Emission Reduction Spreadsheets” (Attachment C) | Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin; Sacramento Metro; San Diego; San Joaquin Valley; Southeast Desert Modified AQMD; and Ventura County | June 13, 1996 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(236)(i)(A)( 1 ).
| California Air Resources Board Executive Order G-125-145, dated November 7, 1994 | Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin; Sacramento Metro; San Diego; San Joaquin Valley; Southeast Desert Modified AQMD; and Ventura County | November 7, 1994 | August 27, 1999, 64 FR 46849 | Executive Order requesting opt-out of the Clean Air Act's Clean Fuel Fleet vehicle program requirement. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(201)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program SIPs
California Smog Check Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan Revision | Coachella Valley, Eastern Kern County, Mariposa County, Sacramento Metro Area, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Ventura County, Western Mojave Desert and Western Nevada County | November 13, 2023 | July 9, 2024, 89 FR 56222 | Adopted by CARB on October 26, 2023. Submitted electronically on November 13, 2023 as an attachment to a letter of the same date. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(613)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Smog Check Performance Standard Modeling and Program Certification for the 70 Parts Per Billion (ppb) 8-Hour Ozone Standard, excluding the San Diego County area portion | Coachella Valley, Eastern Kern, Mariposa County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, Ventura County, West Mojave Desert and Western Nevada County | April 26, 2023 | August 30, 2024, 89 FR 70497 | Adopted by the California Air Resources Board on March 23, 2023. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(611)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
The San Diego County area portion of the “California Smog Check Performance Standard Modeling and Program Certification for the 70 Parts Per Billion (ppb) 8-Hour Ozone Standard” | San Diego County | April 26, 2023 | March 1, 2024, 89 FR 15035 | Adopted by the California Air Resources Board on March 23, 2023. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(611)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Non-regulatory portion of the Revised State Implementation Plan for California's Motor Vehicle Inspection & Maintenance Program (April 7, 2009), excluding chapter 51.351 (except as it applies to the San Francisco Bay Area), chapter 51.352, and attachments 4 and 5 | Statewide | June 5, 2009 | July 1, 2010, 75 FR 38023 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(372)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-09-008, dated June 9, 2009 | Statewide | June 5, 2009 | July 1, 2010, 75 FR 38023 | Executive Order adopting the 2009 I/M Revision. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(372)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Health and Safety Code (2009): Division 26, Part 1, Chapter 2, section 39032.5; Part 5, Chapter 5 (Motor Vehicle Inspection Program), Articles 1-9 | Statewide | June 5, 2009 | July 1, 2010, 75 FR 38023 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(372)(ii)(A)( 3 ). Section 39032.5 of chapter 2 defines the term “Gross Polluters.” Articles 1 through 9 of chapter 5 include sections 44000-44005 (article 1); sections 44010-44025 (article 2); sections 44030-44045.6 (article 3); sections 44050-44059 (article 4); sections 44060-44063 (article 5); sections 44070-44071 (article 6); sections 44072-44072.11 (article 7); sections 44080-44086 (article 8); and sections 44090-44099 (article 9).
Business and Professions Code (2008): Division 3, Chapter 20.3 (Automotive Repair), Article 4, sections 9886, 9886.1, 9886.2, 9886.3, 9886.4 | Statewide | June 5, 2009 | July 1, 2010, 75 FR 38023 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(372)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
| Vehicle Code (2009): Division 3, Chapter 1 (Original and Renewal of Registration; Issuance of Certificates of Title), Article 1, sections 4000.1, 4000.2, 4000.3, 4000.6 | Statewide | June 5, 2009 | July 1, 2010, 75 FR 38023 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(372)(ii)(A)( 5 ).
California I/M Program SIP Revision-Additional Enhanced I/M Performance Modeling, Tables of Results, excluding New Mobile 6 Input and Output Files and New Registration Distribution Files | Statewide | October 28, 2009 | July 1, 2010, 75 FR 38023 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(373)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program adopted on January 22, 1996 | Statewide | January 22, 1996 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(234)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Enabling legislation, Chapter 892, Statutes of 1982, (Senate Bill No. 33) for a California motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program and the California Air Resources Board's Executive Order G-125-15 | Statewide | September 17, 1982 | November 25, 1983, 48 FR 53114 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(133).
A schedule to implement the California motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, the California Air Resources Board's Executive Order G-125-33, and local resolutions and requests from the Bay Area AQMD, Sacramento County APCD, Placer County APCD, Yolo-Solano APCD, San Diego County APCD, South Coast AQMD and Ventura County APCD to have the State implement the I/M program | Statewide | July 26, 1983 | November 25, 1983, 48 FR 53114 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(134).
Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Provisions and Related Test Methods
California Air Resources Board Executive Order G-125-320, dated June 15, 2004 | Statewide | June 15, 2004 | May 12, 2010, 75 FR 26653 | Executive order adopting the 2004 RFG Revision. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(374)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-09-001, dated February 3, 2009 | Statewide | February 3, 2009 | May 12, 2010, 75 FR 26653 | Executive order adopting the 2009 RFG Revision. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(375)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-09-001, dated February 3, 2009 | Statewide | February 3, 2009 | May 12, 2010, 75 FR 26653 | Executive order adopting the 2009 Diesel Fuels Revision. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(376)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Standard Test Method for Determination of Ethanol Content of Denatured Fuel Ethanol by Gas Chromatography, Designation: D 5501-94 (1998); Standard Test Method for Gum Content in Fuels by Jet Evaporation, Designation: D 381-00; Standard Test Method for Water Using Volumetric Karl Fischer Titration, Designation: E 203-96; Standard Test Method for Water in Organic Liquids by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration, Designation: E 1064-00; Standard Test Methods for Chloride Ion In Water, Designation: D 512-89 (1999); Standard Test Methods for Copper in Water, Designation: D 1688-95; Standard Test Method for Acidity in Volatile Solvents and Chemical Intermediates Used in Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Products, Designation: D 1613-96 (1999); Standard Test Method for Determination of pHe of Ethanol, Denatured Fuel Ethanol, and Fuel Ethanol (Ed75-Ed85), Designation: D 6423-99 | Statewide | June 15, 2004 | May 12, 2010, 75 FR 26653 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(374)(ii)(A)( 2 )( i ).
Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Motor Fuels and Oils by Ultraviolet Fluorescence, Designation: D 5453-93 | Statewide | June 15, 2004 | May 12, 2010, 75 FR 26653 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(374)(ii)(A)( 2 )( ii ).
Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography, Designation: D 4815-99; Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure, Designation: D 86-99a; Standard Test Method for Determination of Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography, Designation: D 6550-00 | Statewide | June 15, 2004 | May 12, 2010, 75 FR 26653 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(374)(ii)(A)( 2 )( ii i).
| Base Year Emission Inventory and VMT Offset Demonstration Ozone SIPs
California Air Resources Board “70 ppb Ozone SIP Submittal,” section III, “VMT Offset Demonstration,” adopted on June 25, 2020 | Los Angeles—South Coast Air Basin, Riverside County (Coachella Valley), San Joaquin Valley | July 27, 2020 | November 6, 2023, 88 FR 76139 | VMT Offset Demonstrations for three areas designated as nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(589)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board, “70 ppb Ozone SIP Submittal,” excluding section III, “VMT Offset Demonstration,” release date: May 22, 2020 | Amador County, Butte County, Calaveras County, Imperial County, Kern County (Eastern Kern), Los Angeles—San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), Los Angeles—South Coast Air Basin, Mariposa County, Nevada County (Western part), Riverside County (Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro, San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part), Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne County, Tuscan Buttes, and Ventura County | July 27, 2020 | September 29, 2022, 87 FR 59015 | Base year emissions inventories for 18 areas designated as nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(589)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Emission Inventory Submittal, excluding the tables of 2012 average summer daily emissions (tons per day) other than the tables for Chico (Butte County), San Luis Obispo County (Eastern San Luis Obispo), Calaveras County, and San Francisco Bay Area | Chico (Butte County), San Luis Obispo County (Eastern San Luis Obispo), Calaveras County, and San Francisco Bay Area | July 17, 2014 | October 19, 2016, 81 FR 71997 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(481)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
1990 Base-Year Emission Inventory for Ozone Nonattainment Areas in California | Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin; Sacramento Metro; San Diego; San Joaquin Valley; Southeast Desert Modified AQMA; and Ventura County | March 30, 1995 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | California Statewide emission inventory adopted by California Air Resources Board. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(213)(i)(A)( 1 )( i ).
1990 Base-Year Emission Inventory for Ozone Nonattainment Areas in California | Santa Barbara County | March 30, 1995 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1187; re-codified at 62 FR 17083 (April 9, 1997) | California Statewide emission inventory adopted by California Air Resources Board. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(213)(i)(A)( 1 )( ii ).
| 1990 Base-Year Emission Inventory for Ozone Nonattainment Areas in California | Monterey Bay Area | March 30, 1995 | January 17, 1997, 62 FR 2597; re-codified at 62 FR 17083 (April 9, 1997) | California Statewide emission inventory adopted by California Air Resources Board. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(213)(i)(A)( 1 )( iii ).
Pesticide-Related SIPs
Decision, “In the Matter of Proposed Ozone SIP Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley,” signed by Mary-Ann Warmerdam, April 17, 2009, including Exhibit A, “Department of Pesticide Regulation Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley” | San Joaquin Valley | October 12, 2009 | October 26, 2012, 77 FR 65294 | Adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(413)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Memorandum, Rosemary Neal, Ph.D., California Department of Pesticide Regulation to Randy Segawa, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, November 5, 2008; Subject: Update to the Pesticide Volatile Organic Inventory. Estimated Emissions 1990-2006, and Preliminary Estimates for 2007 | San Joaquin Valley | October 12, 2009 | October 26, 2012, 77 FR 65294 | Adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(413)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Multi-Area Ozone Plan Elements
California Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification for the 70 ppb Ozone Standard | Riverside County (Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles—South Coast Air Basin (South Coast), Ventura County, and Los Angeles—San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert) nonattainment areas | February 3, 2022 | May 25, 2023, 88 FR 33830 | Adopted by the California Air Resources Board on January 27, 2022. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(597)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Multi-Area Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plans
2004 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas | Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area | November 8, 2004 | November 30, 2005, 70 FR 71776 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on July 22, 2004. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(341)(i)(A)( 1 ).
| Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas | Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe South Shore, Modesto Urbanized Area, Sacramento Area, San Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area | July 3, 1996 | March 31, 1998, 63 FR 15305 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on April 26, 1996. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(253)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Table 3—Great Basin Valleys, Mojave Desert and Salton Sea Air Basins
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Explanation
California Air Resources Board, Staff Report, “2020 Coachella Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstration,” Release Date: January 22, 2021 | Coachella Valley | March 18, 2021 | January 21, 2025, 90 FR 6823 | Submitted electronically on March 18, 2021 as an attachment to a letter dated March 15, 2021. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(624)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
“South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Coachella Valley Extreme Area Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard,” dated December 2020, the section titled “Reasonable Further Progress,” pages 6-1 through 6-7 | Coachella Valley | December 29, 2020 | January 21, 2025, 90 FR 6823 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on December 4, 2020. Submitted electronically on December 29, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(614)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
“South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Coachella Valley Extreme Area Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard,” dated December 2020, except for the sections titled “Reasonable Further Progress” and “Supplemental RACT Demonstration,” pages 6-1 through 6-11 | Coachella Valley | December 29, 2020 | June 12, 2024, 89 FR 49815 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on December 4, 2020. Submitted electronically on December 29, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(614)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2017), Chapter 7 (“Current and Future Air Quality—Desert Nonattainment Areas”), excluding the portions of pages 7-13 to 7-22 regarding particulate matter and other criteria pollutants, and excluding the portions of pages 7-26 to 7-30 regarding reasonable further progress | Coachella Valley | April 27, 2017 | September 16, 2020, 85 FR 57714 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on March 3, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(B)( 6 ).
2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan, chapter VII (“SIP Elements for the Coachella Valley”), excluding section VII.D (“Contingency Measures”); and pages A-23 through A-26 of appendix A (“Nonattainment Area Inventories”) | Coachella Valley | December 11, 2018 | September 16, 2020, 85 FR 57714 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 25, 2018. Submitted electronically on December 11, 2018 as an attachment to a letter dated December 5, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)( 7 ).
California Air Resources Board, Staff Report, Proposed Updates to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, State Implementation Plans; Coachella Valley and Western Mojave Desert (excluding section III (pp. 8-12), Table A-2, Table B-2, Table C-2, the bottom row of Table E-1, Table E-3 and accompanying discussion of Western Mojave Desert ROG calculations on p. E-7, and Figure E-2 (regarding Western Mojave Desert); Table B-3 (regarding contingency measures); and Appendix D (regarding transportation conformity budgets)) | Coachella Valley | November 6, 2014 | June 12, 2017, 82 FR 26854 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 24, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(486)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Final South Coast 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, Chapter 8 (“Future Air Quality—Desert Nonattainment Areas”) (excluding pp. 8-14 to 8-17 (regarding transportation conformity budgets)) | Coachella Valley | November 28, 2007 | June 12, 2017, 82 FR 26854 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on June 1, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(398)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
| 2003 Coachella Valley PM-10 State Implementation Plan: Baseline and projected emissions inventories in Tables 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5; reasonable further progress in Tables 2-9 and 2-7; attainment demonstration in Chapter 3; and motor vehicle emissions budgets in “2003 Coachella Valley PM-10 SIP On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets” | Coachella Valley planning area | January 9, 2004 | November 14, 2005, 70 FR 69081 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on August 1, 2003, and by California Air Resources Board on October 23, 2003. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(339)(i)(A)( 2 ).
Baseline and projected emissions inventories, South Coast AQMD commitment to adopt and implement control measures, reasonable further progress, contingency measures, attainment demonstration, PM-10 attainment date extension, and motor vehicle emissions budgets, as contained in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the 2002 Coachella Valley PM-10 SIP adopted by South Coast AQMD on June 21, 2002, and the 2002 Coachella Valley PM-10 SIP Addendum (Appendix E) adopted by South Coast AQMD on September 13, 2002 | Coachella Valley planning area | November 18, 2002 | April 18, 2003, 68 FR 19318 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(309)(i)(A)( 2 ).
South Coast AQMD commitment to adopt and implement control measures, as contained in the Coachella Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for PM-10 | Coachella Valley planning area | February 5, 1997 | April 18, 2003, 68 FR 19318 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(247)(i)(A)( 5 ).
Coso Junction PM-10 Planning Area Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan | Coso Junction planning area | October 21, 2021 | July 13, 2023, 88 FR 44707; corrected at 88 FR 54899 (August 14, 2023) | Submitted on October 21, 2021 by CARB as an attachment to a letter dated October 20, 2021. Adopted by Great Basin Unified APCD on September 23, 2021. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(603)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Non-regulatory portions of “The 2010 PM-10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area” (the 2010 Plan), including Appendices A, B, and D | Coso Junction planning area | July 14, 2010 | September 3, 2010, 75 FR 54031 | Adopted by Great Basin Unified APCD on May 17, 2010. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(380)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter dated June 10, 2010 from Theodore D. Schade, Great Basin Unified APCD, to Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, regarding Coso Junction PM-10 Contingency Measures | Coso Junction planning area | June 10, 2010 | September 3, 2010, 75 FR 54031 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(380)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Great Basin Unified APCD Board Resolution 2010-01, dated May 17, 2010 | Coso Junction planning area | July 14, 2010 | September 3, 2010, 75 FR 54031 | Resolution adopting the 2010 Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(380)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 10-25, dated June 24, 2010 | Coso Junction planning area | July 14, 2010 | September 3, 2010, 75 FR 54031 | Resolution adopting the 2010 Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(380)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan, adopted on October 25, 2018, chapter IV (“SIP Elements for Eastern Kern County”); and pages A-11 through A-14 of appendix A (“Nonattainment Area Inventories”), only | Eastern Kern | December 11, 2018 | June 25, 2021, 86 FR 33528 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 25, 2018. Submitted electronically on December 11, 2018 as an attachment to a letter dated December 5, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)( 8 ).
2017 Ozone Attainment Plan For 2008 Federal 75 ppb 8-Hour Ozone Standard, adopted on July 27, 2017, excluding chapter XI (“Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration”) and chapter XIII (“Attainment Demonstration”) | Eastern Kern | October 25, 2017 | June 25, 2021, 86 FR 33528 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(560)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Transportation Conformity Budget State Implementation Plan Update for the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Attainment Plan, release date: June 19, 2020 | Eastern Kern | August 31, 2020 | June 25, 2021, 86 FR 33528 | Submitted on August 31, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated August 25, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(561)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) except the portion addressing the Negative Declaration for the Oil and Natural Gas CTG | Eastern Kern | August 9, 2017 | November 4, 2021, 86 FR 60771 | Adopted by Eastern Kern APCD on May 11, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(503)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards—Negative Declaration for Oil and Natural Gas CTG only | Eastern Kern | August 9, 2017 | January 15, 2021, 86 FR 3816 | Adopted by Eastern Kern APCD on May 11, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(503)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Commitments for the installation and operation of a FRM or FEM PM-10 monitor and SIP development and submittal | East Kern | February 29, 2008 | November 12, 2008, 73 FR 66759 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(357)(i)(A).
Kern County APCD Resolution No. 2008-001-02, February 27, 2008 | East Kern | February 29, 2008 | November 12, 2008, 73 FR 66759 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(357)(i)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-08-004, March 3, 2008 | East Kern | February 29, 2008 | November 12, 2008, 73 FR 66759 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(357)(i)(A)( 2 ).
| East Kern County Ozone Attainment Demonstration, Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request: Chapter 5—“Regional Forecast,” including emissions inventory summary (Table 5-1) and motor vehicle emissions budgets (Table 5-2); Chapter 6—“Emission Control Measures,” including contingency measures (Table 6-1); and Appendix B—“Emission Inventories” | East Kern County | December 9, 2003 | April 22, 2004, 69 FR 21731 | Adopted by Kern County APCD on May 1, 2003. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(322)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Emissions inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress plan, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in “Rate-of-Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for the Kern County Air Pollution Control District” | East Kern portion of San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area | December 28, 1994 | January 8, 1997; 62 FR 1150; corrected at 84 FR 45422 (August 29, 2019) | Adopted by Kern County APCD on December 1, 1994. EPA inadvertently failed to list the 15% ROP and Post-1996 ROP plan approvals in our 1997 final rule. They were added in 2019. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(205)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Part XI—Great Basin Valleys Air Basin | Great Basin Valleys Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Imperial County 2018 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Diameter, excluding appendix B (“Executed Settlement Agreement”) and appendix F (“Regulation VIII Fugitive Dust Rules”) | Imperial Valley planning area | February 13, 2019 | September 18, 2020, 85 FR 58286 | Adopted by Imperial County APCD on adopted October 23, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(541)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
The Certification of the Nonattainment New Source Review Permit Program for Imperial County Applicable to the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard | Imperial County | August 3, 2021 | August 15, 2023, 88 FR 55377 | Adopted by the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District on June 22, 2021. Submitted on August 3, 2021, as an attachment to a letter of the same date. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(591)(ii)(D)( 1 ).
Imperial County 2017 State Implementation Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, except Chapter 7 (“Reasonably Available Control Technology 21 Assessment”) and Appendix B (“Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis for the 2017 Imperial County State Implementation Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard”) | Imperial County | November 14, 2017 | February 27, 2020, 85 FR 11817 | Adopted by Imperial County APCD on adopted September 12, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(530)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan, Chapter II (“SIP Elements for Imperial County”) and pages A-3 through A-6 of Appendix A (“Nonattainment Area Inventories”), only | Imperial County | December 11, 2018 | February 27, 2020, 85 FR 11817 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 25, 2018. Submitted electronically on December 11, 2018 as an attachment to a letter dated December 5, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)( 5 ).
Imperial County 2017 State Implementation Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, Chapter 7 (“Reasonably Available Control Technology Assessment”) | Imperial County | November 14, 2017 | February 13, 2020, 85 FR 8181 | Adopted by Imperial County APCD on adopted September 12, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(530)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Imperial County 2017 State Implementation Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, Appendix B (“Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis for the 2017 Imperial County State Implementation Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard”) | Imperial County | November 14, 2017 | February 13, 2020, 85 FR 8181 | Adopted by Imperial County APCD on adopted September 12, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(530)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Imperial County 2013 State Implementation Plan for the 2006 24-Hour PM 2.5 Moderate Nonattainment Area, Chapter 3 (“Emissions Inventory”) excluding: Section 3.4.1 (“Determination of Significant Sources of PM 2.5 Precursors”); Section 3.4.2 (“Determination of Significant Sources of PM 2.5 ”); the 2011 and 2012 winter and annual average inventories in Table 3.1 (“PM 2.5 Emissions Inventory by Major Source Category 2008, 2011 and 2012 Winter and Annual Planning Emissions Inventories”); the 2011 and 2012 winter and annual average inventories in Table 3.7 (“NO X Emissions Inventory by Major Source Category 2008, 2011 and 2012 Winter and Annual Planning Emissions Inventories”); the 2011 and 2012 winter and annual average inventories in Table 3.8 (“VOCs Emissions Inventory by Major Source Category 2008, 2011 and 2012 Winter and Annual Planning Emissions Inventories”); the 2011 and 2012 winter and annual average inventories in Table 3.9 (“SO X Emissions Inventory by Major Source Category 2008, 2011 and 2012 Winter and Annual Planning Emissions Inventories”); and the 2011 and 2012 winter and annual average inventories in Table 3.10 (“Ammonia Emissions Inventory by Major Source Category 2008, 2011 and 2012 Winter and Annual Planning Emissions Inventories”) | Imperial County 2006 PM 2.5 nonattainment area | January 9, 2015 | March 13, 2017, 82 FR 13392; corrected on May 30, 2017, 82 FR 24527 | Adopted by Imperial County APCD on December 2, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(484)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
| Final 2009 Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan | Imperial County | December 21, 2010 | November 12, 2015, 80 FR 69876 | Adopted by Imperial County APCD on adopted on July 13, 2010. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(464)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(12)(i).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 10-35, November 18, 2010 | Imperial County | December 21, 2010 | October 23, 2014, 79 FR 63332 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(445)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Imperial County Air Pollution Control Board, Minute Order No. 15, July 13, 2010 | Imperial County | December 21, 2010 | October 23, 2014, 79 FR 63332 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(445)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Chapter 4-Emission Inventory, in “Imperial County 2009 1997 8-Hour Ozone Modified Air Quality Management Plan” | Imperial County | December 21, 2010 | October 23, 2014, 79 FR 63332 | Adopted by Imperial County APCD on July 13, 2010. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(445)(ii)(B)( 2 ).
Summary of Plan Compliance with Clean Air Act Requirements | Imperial County | October 11, 1979 | November 10, 1980, 45 FR 74480 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(55)(i).
Imperial County plan to attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards for oxidants, October 31, 1978 | Imperial County | October 11, 1979 | November 10, 1980, 45 FR 74480 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(55)(ii).
SIP Revision-Imperial County ARB Staff Report, No. 79-4-2 | Imperial County | October 11, 1979 | November 10, 1980, 45 FR 74480 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(55)(iii).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 79-9, February 21, 1979 | Imperial County | October 11, 1979 | November 10, 1980, 45 FR 74480 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(55)(iv).
Copies of Board hearing testimony | Imperial County | October 11, 1979 | November 10, 1980, 45 FR 74480 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(55)(v).
Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year PM 10 Maintenance Plan | Indian Wells Valley planning area | July 30, 2020 | January 18, 2023, 88 FR 2839 | Adopted by the Eastern Kern APCD on June 5, 2020. Submitted on July 30, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated July 23, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(594)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
PM-10 (Respirable Dust) Attainment Demonstration, Maintenance Plan, and Redesignation Request (excluding pages 4-1, 4-2, 6-1, 6-2, Appendix A, and pages D-12 through D-37 of Appendix D) | Indian Wells Valley planning area | December 5, 2002 | May 7, 2003, 68 FR 24368 | Adopted by Kern County APCD on September 5, 2002. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(306)(i)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order G-125-295, December 4, 2002 | Indian Wells Valley planning area | December 5, 2002 | May 7, 2003, 68 FR 24368 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(306)(i)(B)( 1 ).
2014 Air Quality Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Town of Mammoth Lakes | Mammoth Lakes planning area | October 21, 2014 | October 5, 2015, 80 FR 60049 | Adopted by Great Basin Unified APCD on May 5, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(462)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Great Basin Unified APCD Board Order #140505-03, May 5, 2014 | Mammoth Lakes planning area | October 21, 2014 | October 5, 2015, 80 FR 60049 | Board Order adopting the Mammoth Lakes PM-10 Maintenance Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(462)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 14-27, September 18, 2014 | Mammoth Lakes planning area | October 21, 2014 | October 5, 2015, 80 FR 60049 | Resolution adopting the redesignation request and Mammoth Lakes PM-10 Maintenance Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(462)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Air Quality Management Plan for the Mammoth Lakes PM-10 Planning Area | Mammoth Lakes planning area | September 11, 1991 | June 24, 1996, 61 FR 32341 | Adopted by Great Basin Unified APCD on December 12, 1990. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(226)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Revisions to the Air Quality Management Plan for Mammoth Lakes PM-10 Planning Area | Mammoth Lakes planning area | January 9, 1992 | June 24, 1996, 61 FR 32341 | Adopted by Great Basin Unified APCD on November 6, 1991. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(228)(i)(A)( 1 ).
2016 Owens Valley Planning Area PM 10 State Implementation Plan, excluding all of the following: Section 10.1 (“Proposed Rule 433”); Appendix I-1 (“2006 Settlement Agreement”); Appendix II-1 (“2014 Stipulated Judgement”); Appendices D (“2008 GBUAPCD Board Order No. 080128-01”), E (“2013 GBUAPCD Board Order No. 130916-01”), and F (“GBUAPCD Fugitive Dust Rules (400, 401, 402)”) of Appendix V-1 (“Owens Valley Planning Area 2016 State Implementation Plan BACM Assessment”); Appendix VI-2 (“Owens Lake Dust Mitigation Program Phase 9/10 Project—Final Environmental Impact Report (May 2015)”); and Appendix X-1 (“Proposed Rule 433”) | Owens Valley planning area | June 9, 2016 | March 13, 2017, 82 FR 13390 | Adopted by the Great Basin Unified APCD on April 13, 2016. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(483)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Owens Valley PM-10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan, Section 7-4, Commitment to adopt 2003 SIP Revision and Section 8-2, the Board Order adopted on November 16, 1998 with Exhibit 1 | Owens Valley planning area | December 10, 1998 | September 3, 1999, 64 FR 48305 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(267)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
| The Southeast Desert Air Basin Control Strategy for ozone | Southeast Desert Air Basin | February 15, 1980 | June 9, 1982, 47 FR 25013 | This plan is chapter 19 of the Comprehensive Revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ambient Air Quality Standards. The portions of the Southeast Desert Air Basin Control Strategy identified in Table 19-1 (Summary of Plan Compliance with Clean Air Act Requirements), except those which pertain to Imperial County, comprise the plan. The remaining portions are for informational purposes only. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(106).
Part XII—Southeast Desert Air Basin | Southeast Desert Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Control measures, emissions inventory, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in “Rate-of-Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for the Mojave Desert” | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area | November 15, 1994 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on October 26, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(F)( 1 ).
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration for Resin Manufacturing and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration for Surfactant Manufacturing | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | July 19, 2004 | September 21, 2004, 69 FR 56355 | Adopted on March 16, 2004. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(vi).
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration for Metal Container, Closure and Coil Coating Operations and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration for Magnet Wire Coating Operations | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | June 3, 2004 | September 21, 2004, 69 FR 56355 | Adopted on February 17, 2004. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(v).
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, Federal Negative Declaration for Rule 1103—Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics Manufacturing Operations | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | March 28, 2000 | November 3, 2000, 65 FR 66175 | Adopted on January 18, 2000. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(iv).
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, Federal Negative Declaration for Rule 1106—Marine Coating Operations | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | June 23, 1998 | May 17, 2000, 65 FR 31267 | Adopted on January 20, 1998. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(iii).
Resolution No. 98-03, A Resolution of the Governing Board of the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District Making Findings, Certifying the Notice of Exemption, Rescinding Rule 1142—Marine Tank Vessel Operations, Adopting a Federal Negative Declaration for Marine Tank Vessel Operations and Directing Staff Actions | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | June 23, 1998 | May 17, 2000, 65 FR 31267 | Adopted on January 20, 1998. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(iii).
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, Federal Negative Declaration for Rule 1148—Thermally Enhanced Oil Recovery Wells | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | June 23, 1998 | May 17, 2000, 65 FR 31267 | Adopted on January 20, 1998. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(iii).
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, Federal Negative Declaration for Rule 1123—Refinery Process Turnarounds | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | February 16, 1999 | May 17, 2000, 65 FR 31267 | Adopted on November 18, 1997. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(ii).
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, Federal Negative Declaration for Rule 1115—Motor Vehicle Assembly Line Coating Operations | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | January 12, 1999 | May 17, 2000, 65 FR 31267 | Adopted on November 18, 1997. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(i).
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, Federal Negative Declaration for Rule 1159—Nitric Acid Units—Oxides of Nitrogen | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | March 28, 2000 | November 3, 2000, 65 FR 66175 | Adopted on January 18, 2000. See 40 CFR 52.222(b)(4)(iii).
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, Federal Negative Declaration for Rule 1117—Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Glass Melting Furnaces | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | July 23, 1999 | May 17, 2000, 65 FR 31267 | Adopted on March 16, 1999. See 40 CFR 52.222(b)(4)(ii).
| Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, Federal Negative Declaration for Rule 1112—Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Cement Kilns | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | July 23, 1999 | May 17, 2000, 65 FR 31267 | Adopted on March 16, 1999. See 40 CFR 52.222(b)(4)(ii).
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, Federal Negative Declaration for Rule 1109—Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Boilers and Process Heaters In Petroleum Refineries | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—Los Angeles County portion | May 13, 1999 | May 17, 2000, 65 FR 31267 | Adopted on April 21, 1998. See 40 CFR 52.222(b)(4)(i).
Federal Negative Declaration for Eight Post-Enactment CTG Categories | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—San Bernardino County portion | August 7, 1995 | November 1, 1996, 61 FR 56474 | Negative declarations for Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation, SOCMI Reactors, SOCMI Batch Processing, Offset Lithography, Industrial Wastewater, Plastic Parts Coating (Business Machines), Plastic Parts Coating (Other), and Ship Building adopted by the Mojave Desert AQMD on June 28, 1995. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(iv).
Negative Declaration for Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—San Bernardino County portion | December 29, 1994 | September 11, 1995, 60 FR 47074 | Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on December 21, 1994 through Resolution 94-38. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(iii).
Negative Declaration for Asphalt Air Blowing | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—San Bernardino County portion | December 20, 1994 | September 11, 1995, 60 FR 47074 | Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on October 26, 1994 in Resolution 94-26. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(ii).
Negative declaration for Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Equipment | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—San Bernardino County portion | July 13, 1994 | September 11, 1995, 60 FR 47074 | Negative declaration is contained in a letter from Charles L. Fryxell, Air Pollution Control Officer, Mojave Desert AQMD to Ron Friesen, Assistant Chief, California Air Resources Board, dated May 25, 1994. Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on May 25, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(i).
Negative declaration for Chemical Processing and Manufacturing | Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area—San Bernardino County portion | July 13, 1994 | September 11, 1995, 60 FR 47074 | Negative declaration is contained in a letter from Charles L. Fryxell, Air Pollution Control Officer, Mojave Desert AQMD to Ron Friesen, Assistant Chief, California Air Resources Board, dated May 25, 1994. Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on May 25, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(i).
West Mojave Desert Vehicle-Miles Traveled Offset Demonstration | West Mojave Desert | December 29, 2020 | November 6, 2023, 88 FR 76139 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 22, 2020. Submitted electronically on December 29, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(605)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan, adopted on October 25, 2018, chapter VI (“SIP Elements for the Western Mojave Desert”), excluding section VI.D (“Contingency Measures”); and pages A-19 through A-22 of Appendix A (“Nonattainment Area Inventories”). | West Mojave Desert | December 11, 2018 | September 27, 2021, 86 FR 53223; corrected at 86 FR 57586 (October 18, 2021) | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 25, 2018. Submitted electronically on December 11, 2018 as an attachment to a letter dated December 5, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)( 9 ).
CARB Review of the Mojave Desert AQMD and Antelope Valley AQMD Federal 75 ppb Ozone Attainment Plans for the Western Mojave Desert Nonattainment Area, released April 21, 2017, excluding section V.D (“Contingency Measures”) | West Mojave Desert | June 2, 2017 | September 27, 2021, 86 FR 53223; corrected at 86 FR 57586 (October 18, 2021) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(563)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board, Staff Report, Proposed Updates to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, State Implementation Plans; Coachella Valley and Western Mojave Desert: “Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration Update,” at p. 10 (excluding those portions that pertain to reasonable further progress targets after 2011); Table A-2 (excluding pp. A-10 through A-12, and those portions that pertain to reasonable further progress targets after 2011); Table C-2 (excluding those portions that pertain to reasonable further progress targets after 2011) | Western Mojave Desert | November 6, 2014 | June 23, 2017, 82 FR 28560 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 24, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(486)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
| Emission Statement Certification | West Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | August 3, 2020 | July 29, 2022, 87 FR 45657 | Adopted by Antelope Valley AQMD on July 21, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(574)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
AVAQMD Federal 75 ppb Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Nonattainment Area), adopted on March 21, 2017, except the following portions: Chapter 2 -Emission Inventories; “Contingency Measures” (page 18); “Reasonable Further Progress Requirements,” including Table 3 (pages 18-20); “Conformity Budgets” (page 21); “Transportation Conformity,” including Table 4 (pages 21-23); Appendix A—Base Year Emission Inventory; and Appendix B—Future Year Emission Inventories | West Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | June 2, 2017 | September 27, 2021, 86 FR 53223; corrected at 86 FR 57586 (October 18, 2021) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(563)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Federal Negative Declaration for Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry Source Category | West Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | May 1, 2020 | January 15, 2021, 86 FR 3816 | Adopted by the Antelope Valley AQMD on January 21, 2020. Submitted on May 1, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated April 30, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(549)(ii)(A)(1).
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Compliance Demonstrations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) | West Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | August 31, 2018 | December 3, 2019, 84 FR 66074 | Adopted by the Antelope Valley AQMD on July 17, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(528)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
8-Hour Reasonably Available Control Technology—State Implementation Plan Analysis (RACT SIP Analysis), July 2015 | West Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | October 23, 2015 | October 10, 2017, 82 FR 46923 | Adopted by the Antelope Valley AQMD on adopted on July 21, 2015. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(493)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration (8 hr Ozone Standard) for Twenty CTG Source Categories | West Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | October 23, 2015 | October 10, 2017, 82 FR 46923 | Adopted on adopted on July 21, 2015. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(493)(ii)(A)( 2 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(x).
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration (8-hour Ozone Standards) for Seven Control Techniques Guideline Source Categories | West Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | June 7, 2017 | October 10, 2017, 82 FR 46923 | Adopted on December 20, 2016. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(494)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(xi) and (xiii).
8-Hour Reasonably Available Control Technology—State Implementation Plan Analysis (RACT SIP Analysis), August 2006 | Western Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | January 31, 2007 | October 10, 2017, 82 FR 46923 | Adopted by the Antelope Valley AQMD on adopted on September 19, 2006. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(358)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration for Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations | Western Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | June 20, 2011 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12491 | Adopted on January 18, 2011. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(ix).
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration (8-hr Ozone Standard) for Three Source Categories | Western Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | January 7, 2011 | July 1, 2011, 76 FR 38572 | Adopted on October 19, 2010. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(viii).
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration (8 hr Ozone Standard) for Fifty-One CTG Categories | Western Mojave Desert—Los Angeles County portion | January 31, 2007 | July 1, 2011, 76 FR 38572 | Adopted on September 19, 2006. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(6)(vii).
70 ppb Ozone Standard Implementation Evaluation: RACT SIP Analysis; Federal Negative Declarations; and Emission Statement Certification—Negative Declaration for Oil and Natural Gas CTG | West Mojave Desert—San Bernardino County portion | December 20, 2019 | November 4, 2024, 89 FR 87505 | Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on October 28, 2019. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(x).
Emission Statement Certification | West Mojave Desert—San Bernardino County portion | December 20, 2019 | July 29, 2022, 87 FR 45657 | Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on October 28, 2019. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(578)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
MDAQMD Federal 75 ppb Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Nonattainment Area), adopted on February 27, 2017, except the following portions: Chapter 2 -Emission Inventories; “Contingency Measures” (page 20); “Reasonable Further Progress Requirements,” including Table 3 (pages 20-22); “Conformity Budgets” (page 23); “Transportation Conformity,” including Table 4 (pages 23-25); Appendix A—Base Year Emission Inventory; and Appendix B—Future Year Emission Inventories | West Mojave Desert—San Bernardino County portion | June 2, 2017 | September 27, 2021, 86 FR 53223; corrected at 86 FR 57586 (October 18, 2021) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(563)(ii)(C)( 1 ).
Federal Negative Declaration (8 hr Ozone Standard) for Two Control Technologies Guidelines Source Categories | West Mojave Desert—San Bernardino County portion | July 16, 2018 | February 27, 2020, 85 FR 11812 | Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on April 23, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(519)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(viii).
Federal Negative Declaration (8 hr Ozone Standard) for One Control Technologies Guidelines Source Category | West Mojave Desert—San Bernardino County portion | December 7, 2018 | February 27, 2020, 85 FR 11812 | Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on October 22, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(531)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(ix).
| 8-Hour Reasonably Available Control Technology—State Implementation Plan Analysis (RACT SIP Analysis), February 2015 | West Mojave Desert—San Bernardino County portion | September 9, 2015 | February 12, 2018, 83 FR 5921 | Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on February 23, 2015. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(499)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration (8 hr Ozone Standard) for Nineteen CTG Categories | West Mojave Desert—San Bernardino County portion | September 9, 2015 | February 12, 2018, 83 FR 5921 | Adopted on February 23, 2015. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(499)(ii)(A)( 2 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(vii).
8-Hour Reasonably Available Control Technology—State Implementation Plan Analysis (RACT SIP Analysis), August 2006 | Western Mojave Desert—San Bernardino County portion | July 11, 2007 | February 12, 2018, 83 FR 5921 | Adopted by Mojave Desert AQMD on January 22, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(382)(ii)(E)( 1 ).
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration (8 hr Ozone Standard) for Three Source Categories | Western Mojave Desert—San Bernardino County portion | October 22, 2010 | May 20, 2011, 76 FR 29153 | Adopted on August 23, 2010. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(vi).
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Federal Negative Declaration (8 hr Ozone Standard) for Forty-Four CTG Categories | Western Mojave Desert—San Bernardino County portion | July 11, 2007 | May 20, 2011, 76 FR 29153 | Adopted on January 22, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(1)(v).
Table 4—Lake County, Lake Tahoe, Mountain Counties, North Coast, Northeast Plateau and Sacramento Valley Air Basins
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Explanation
The Sacramento Valley Air Basin Control Strategy: those portions pertaining to Butte, Yuba, and Sutter Counties | Butte, Yuba, and Sutter Counties | November 13, 1979 | May 3, 1982, 47 FR 18854 | This plan is chapter 13 of the Comprehensive Revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(91)(ii).
Chico, CA/Butte County PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan | Chico (Butte County) | December 18, 2017 | July 11, 2018, 83 FR 32064 | Adopted by Butte County AQMD on October 26, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(506)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Chico Nonattainment Area (Partial Butte County) 2011 Daily Winter-Time Emissions Inventory (Base Year 2005—Grown and Controlled in Tons Per Day) | Chico (Butte County) | November 15, 2012 | March 14, 2014, 79 FR 14404; corrected at 79 FR 25014 (May 2, 2014) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(435)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Request for Exemption of the Ozone Emergency Episode Plan | Lake County | June 25, 2020 | March 30, 2021, 86 FR 16533 | Adopted by the Lake County Air Quality Management District on April 7, 2020. Submitted on June 25, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated June 16, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(552)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
The 1982 CO Air Quality Plan for the Lake Tahoe Air Basin | Lake Tahoe Air Basin | December 20, 1982 | February 24, 1984, 49 FR 6897 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(141).
Lake Tahoe Basin Control Strategy, including Support Documents and Appendices | Lake Tahoe Air Basin | August 21, 1979 | June 23, 1982, 47 FR 27065 | This plan is chapter 9 of the “Comprehensive Revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ambient Air Quality Standards.” The Transportation Improvement Program and Regional Transportation Plan are for informational purposes only. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(80)(ii).
Negative Declaration for the Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry Source Category | Mariposa County | May 1, 2020 | January 15, 2021, 86 FR 3816 | Adopted by Mariposa County APCD on March 10, 2020. Submitted on May 1, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated April 30, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(549)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
The Mountain Counties Air Basin Control Strategy for ozone | Mountain Counties Air Basin | April 3, 1981 | July 7, 1982, 47 FR 29536 | This plan is chapter 9 of the “Comprehensive Revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ambient Air Quality Standards.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(120).
Part II—North Coast Air Basin | North Coast Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Part VIII—Northeast Plateau Air Basin | Northeast Plateau Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Portola Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) Attainment Plan, subchapter VI.B (“Contingency Measure”), as supplemented and revised October 26, 2020 | Plumas County PM 2.5 nonattainment area (Portola) | February 28, 2017 | March 3, 2021, 86 FR 12263 | Adopted by Northern Sierra AQMD on January 23, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(500)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Portola Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) Attainment Plan, excluding subchapter V.G (“Demonstrating Attainment of the 24-hour Standard”), subchapter VI.B (“Contingency Measure”), and appendices | Plumas County PM 2.5 nonattainment area (Portola) | February 28, 2017 | March 25, 2019, 84 FR 11208 | Adopted by Northern Sierra AQMD on January 23, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(500)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
| California Air Resources Board Resolution 17-28, “Supplemental Transportation Conformity Emissions Budgets for the Portola Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) Attainment Plan,” October 26, 2017, excluding the 2022 conformity budget | Plumas County PM 2.5 nonattainment area (Portola) | December 20, 2017 | March 25, 2019, 84 FR 11208 | Adopted on October 26, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(515)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board, Resolution 20-26, “Proposed Portola PM 2.5 Plan Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan Submittal” | Plumas County PM 2.5 nonattainment area (Portola) | December 29, 2020 | March 3, 2021, 86 FR 12263 | Adopted November 19, 2020. Submitted on December 29, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(553)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District Resolution 2020-09 | Plumas County PM 2.5 nonattainment area (Portola) | December 29, 2020 | March 3, 2021, 86 FR 12263 | Adopted October 26, 2020. Submitted on December 29, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(553)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Emissions Statements Certification for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS | Sacramento County | August 3, 2020 | July 29, 2022, 87 FR 45657 | Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on July 23, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(574)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Rule 421, “Mandatory Episodic Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning,” Financial Hardship Exemption Decision Tree, dated December 12, 2007 | Sacramento County | September 21, 2012 | March 16, 2015, 80 FR 13495 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(423)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Second 10-Year PM 10 Maintenance Plan for Sacramento County | Sacramento County | October 21, 2021 | March 14, 2024, 89 FR 18548 | Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on September 23, 2021. Submitted on October 21, 2021, as an attainment to a letter dated October 20, 2021. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(603)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
PM-10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for Sacramento County, including motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) and attainment year emission inventory | Sacramento County | December 7, 2010 | September 26, 2013, 78 FR 59261 | Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on October 28, 2010. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(431)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Resolution Number 2010-046, dated October 28, 2010 | Sacramento County | December 7, 2010 | September 26, 2013, 78 FR 59261 | Resolution for adoption of Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD PM-10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for Sacramento County, including attainment year emissions inventory and MVEBs for 2012 and 2022. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(431)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution Number 10-37, dated November 18, 2010 | Sacramento County | December 7, 2010 | September 26, 2013, 78 FR 59261 | Resolution for adoption and submittal of the PM-10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for Sacramento County, including attainment year emissions inventory and MVEBs for 2012 and 2022. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(431)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, dated July 24, 2017, excluding the following portions: subchapter 7.9, “Contingency Measures”; subchapter 10.5, “Proposed New Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets”; and chapter 12 (regarding reasonable further progress) | Sacramento Metro | December 18, 2017 | October 22, 2021, 86 FR 58581 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(566)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan, adopted on October 25, 2018, chapter V (“SIP Elements for the Sacramento Metropolitan Area”), excluding section V.D (“Contingency Measures”); and pages A-15 through A-18 of Appendix A (“Nonattainment Area Inventories”) | Sacramento Metro | December 11, 2018 | October 22, 2021, 86 FR 58581 | Submitted on December 11, 2018 as an attachment to a letter dated December 5, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)( 10 ).
Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Rate-of-Progress Plan, Final Draft, December 2005 | Sacramento Metro | February 24, 2006 | January 29, 2015, 80 FR 4795 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(450)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (With Errata Sheets Incorporated), March 26, 2009 (Reasonable further progress demonstration and related contingency demonstration for milestone year 2011 as presented in chapter 13 (“Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations”) only) | Sacramento Metro | April 17, 2009 | January 29, 2015, 80 FR 4795 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(451)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 SIP Revisions), September 26, 2013, including appendices | Sacramento Metro | December 31, 2013 | January 29, 2015, 80 FR 4795 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(452)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
| Supplemental information, titled “Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area, July 24, 2014,” for Appendix F-1 (“Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Demonstration”) of the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 SIP Revisions) | Sacramento Metro | December 31, 2013 | January 29, 2015, 80 FR 4795 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(452)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Emissions inventory, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in “Sacramento Area Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans” | Sacramento Metro | December 29, 1994 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on December 1, 1994; by Feather River AQMD on December 12, 1994; by El Dorado County APCD on December 13, 1994; by Yolo-Solano APCD on December 14, 1994; and by Placer County APCD on December 20, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(233)(i)(B)( 1 ).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Update, Analysis Staff Report | Sacramento Metro—El Dorado County portion | January 4, 2017 | December 31, 2018, 83 FR 67696 | Adopted by El Dorado County AQMD on January 3, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(513)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(7)(iv).
El Dorado County AQMD, Resolution No. 002-2017, January 3, 2017 | Sacramento Metro—El Dorado County portion | January 4, 2017 | December 31, 2018, 83 FR 67696 | Resolution approving 2008 RACT SIP Update Analysis. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(513)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
El Dorado County AQMD, Resolutions No. 177-2012, 178-2012 and 179-2012, December 11, 2012 | Sacramento Metro—El Dorado County portion | September 30, 2013 | January 14, 2014, 79 FR 2375 | Negative declarations for three CTG source categories. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(7)(ii).
El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Update Analysis Staff Report (“2006 RACT SIP”) | Sacramento Metro—El Dorado County portion | July 11, 2007 | March 13, 2014, 79 FR 14176 | Adopted by El Dorado County AQMD on February 6, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(382)(ii)(A)( 1 ). This plan included negative declarations—see 79 FR 21849 (April 18, 2014) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(7)(iii).
Negative Declaration of the Board of Directors of the El Dorado County APCD, April 3, 2001 | Sacramento Metro—El Dorado County portion | May 23, 2001 | August 27, 2001, 66 FR 44974 | Negative declaration for Bulk Terminal Facilities or External or Internal Floating Roof Tank Sources. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(7)(i).
Negative Declaration for the Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry Source Category | Sacramento Metro—Placer County portion | January 23, 2020 | January 15, 2021, 86 FR 3816 | Adopted by Placer County APCD on December 12, 2019. Submitted on January 23, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated January 21, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(548)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2014 Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan Analysis | Sacramento Metro—Placer County portion | July 18, 2014 | August 15, 2017, 82 FR 38604 | Adopted by Placer County APCD on April 10, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(449)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
2006 Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan Update Analysis | Sacramento Metro—Placer County portion | July 11, 2007 | August 15, 2017, 82 FR 38604 | Adopted by Placer County APCD on August 10, 2006. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(382)(ii)(D)( 1 ).
Placer County APCD, Negative Declaration for 16 Source Categories | Sacramento Metro—Placer County portion | April 14, 2014 | August 19, 2014, 79 FR 48995 | Placer County APCD adopted the negative declaration on February 13, 2014. The negative declaration was submitted as Enclosure A to California Air Resources Board Executive Order No. S-14-005, April 14, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(4)(ii) and (iii).
Before the Board of Directors, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, State of California, Resolution No. 97-33 | Sacramento Metro—Placer County portion | February 25, 1998 | September 23, 1998, 63 FR 50766 | Negative declarations for Aerospace Coatings; Industrial Waste Water Treatment; Plastic Parts Coating: Business Machines; Plastic Parts Coating: Other; Shipbuilding and Repair; Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Batch Plants; and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Reactors adopted on October 9, 1997. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(4)(i).
Before the Board of Directors, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, State of California, Resolution No. 97-34 | Sacramento Metro—Placer County portion | February 25, 1998 | September 23, 1998, 63 FR 50766 | Negative Declaration for Nitric and Adipic Acid Manufacturing Plants, Utility Boilers, Cement Manufacturing Plants, Glass Manufacturing Plants, and Iron and Steel Manufacturing Plants adopted on October 9, 1997. See 40 CFR 52.222(b)(3)(i).
State Implementation Plan Submittal: Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Permits for Major Stationary Sources of Nitrogen Oxides | Sacramento Metro—Sacramento County portion | April 11, 2024 | September 25, 2024, 89 FR 78255 | Addresses the RACT requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on February 26, 2024. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(617)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
The Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) determination for non-CTG major sources of NO X as contained in the RACT State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (“Demonstration of Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS”) | Sacramento Metro—Sacramento County portion | May 5, 2017 | September 25, 2024, 89 FR 78255 | Addresses the RACT requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on March 23, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(599)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
| Demonstration of Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (RACT SIP), except the RACT determination for non-CTG major sources of NO X | Sacramento Metro—Sacramento County portion | May 5, 2017 | June 30, 2023, 88 FR 42248 | Addresses the RACT requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on March 23, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(599)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Negative Declaration for “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008 (Pleasure Craft Coating Portion Only) | Sacramento Metro—Sacramento County portion | June 11, 2018 | November 19, 2020, 85 FR 73640 | Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on March 22, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(543)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, dated October 26, 2006, excluding the RACT determinations for: (i) Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturing Source Category; (ii) Kiefer Landfill (RACT for volatile organic compounds) | Sacramento Metro—Sacramento County portion | July 11, 2007 | August 12, 2016, 81 FR 53280 | Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on October 26, 2006. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(382)(ii)(C)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(2)(iv).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Update as Applicable to the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, dated October 23, 2008 | Sacramento Metro—Sacramento County portion | January 21, 2009 | August 12, 2016, 81 FR 53280 | Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on October 23, 2008. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(475)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(2)(iv).
Negative Declaration, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings; and Negative Declaration, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials | Sacramento Metro—Sacramento County portion | July 12, 2012 | October 17, 2012, 77 FR 63743 | Negative declarations adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on March 22, 2012. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(2)(iii).
Negative Declaration, Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations | Sacramento Metro—Sacramento County portion | January 12, 2012 | April 18, 2012, 77 FR 23130 | Adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on October 27, 2011. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(2)(ii).
Negative Declaration [FCAAA Sec. 182(b)], Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District | Sacramento Metro—Sacramento County portion | June 6, 1996 | July 31, 1997, 62 FR 40934 | Negative declaration for Plastic Parts Coating: Business Machines and Plastic Parts Coating: Other adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on May 2, 1996. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(2)(i).
Negative Declaration [FCAAA Sec. 182(f)], Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District | Sacramento Metro—Sacramento County portion | March 4, 1996 | November 1, 1996, 61 FR 56472 | Negative declaration for Nitric and Adipic Acid Manufacturing Plants, Utility Boilers, Cement Manufacturing Plants, Glass Manufacturing Plants, and Iron and Steel Manufacturing Plants adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD on August 3, 1995. See 40 CFR 52.222(b)(1)(i).
The RACT determination for non-CTG major sources of NO X as contained in the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (“Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Analysis” | Sacramento Metro—Solano and Yolo Counties portion | November 13, 2017 | March 14, 2024, 89 FR 18546 | Addresses the RACT requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Adopted by Yolo-Solano AQMD on September 13, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(505)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Analysis, except the RACT determination for non-CTG major sources of NO X | Sacramento Metro—Solano and Yolo Counties portion | November 13, 2017 | June 30, 2023, 88 FR 42252 | Addresses the RACT requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Adopted by Yolo-Solano AQMD on September 13, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(505)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
2015 Federal Ozone Standard Emissions Statement Certification for the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District | Sacramento Metro—Solano and Yolo Counties portion | November 2, 2020 | July 29, 2022, 87 FR 45657 | Adopted by Yolo-Solano AQMD on September 9, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(580)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Certification that Yolo-Solano's Existing NNSR Program meets the 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule | Sacramento Metro—Solano and Yolo Counties portion | June 19, 2018 | December 13, 2018, 83 FR 64026 | Adopted by Yolo-Solano AQMD on March 14, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(511)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Analysis: “Table 3—CTG Categories for Which YSAQMD Will Adopt a Negative Declaration” | Sacramento Metro—Solano and Yolo Counties portion | November 13, 2017 | July 3, 2018, 83 FR 31072 | Adopted by Yolo-Solano AQMD on September 13, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(505)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(14)(ii).
Yolo-Solano AQMD Resolution No. 18-01: Adoption of Four Negative Declarations | Sacramento Metro—Solano and Yolo Counties portion | February 22, 2018 | April 6, 2018, 83 FR 14754 | Adopted by Yolo-Solano AQMD on January 10, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(501)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(14)(i).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) | Sacramento Metro—Solano and Yolo Counties portion | January 31, 2007 | April 6, 2018, 83 FR 14754 | Adopted by Yolo-Solano AQMD on September 13, 2006. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(358)(ii)(B)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(14)(i).
| Nonattainment New Source Review Certification for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Adoption) | Sacramento Metro—Sutter County portion and Sutter Buttes | August 3, 2021 | April 22, 2024, 89 FR 29257 | Adopted by Feather River AQMD on June 7, 2021. The approval relates to NNSR program requirements applicable to the southern portion of Sutter County as a Moderate ozone nonattainment area and the Sutter Buttes portion of Sutter County as a Marginal ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(591)(ii)(E)( 1 ).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the South Sutter County Portion of the Sacramento Metropolitan Nonattainment Area for 8-Hour ozone—Negative Declaration for Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry | Sacramento Metro—Sutter County portion | December 7, 2018 | September 14, 2020, 85 FR 56521; heading corrected at 85 FR 59672 (September 23, 2020) | Adopted by Feather River AQMD on August 6, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(11)(ii).
2006 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis for State Implementation Plan (SIP) | Sacramento Metro—Sutter County portion and Sutter Buttes | July 11, 2007 | July 8, 2015, 80 FR 38959 | The 2006 RACT SIP was adopted by Feather River AQMD on December 4, 2006. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(382)(ii)(B)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(11)(i).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision | Sacramento Metro—Sutter County portion and Sutter Buttes | October 27, 2009 | July 8, 2015, 80 FR 38959; corrected on July 31, 2019, 84 FR 37103 | The 2009 RACT SIP was adopted by Feather River AQMD on June 1, 2009. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(459)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(11)(i).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis and Negative Declaration | Sacramento Metro—Sutter County portion and Sutter Buttes | September 29, 2014 | July 8, 2015, 80 FR 38959; corrected on September 8, 2015, 80 FR 53739 | The 2014 RACT SIP was adopted by Feather River AQMD on August 4, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(460)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(11)(i).
The 1982 ozone and CO Air Quality Plan for the Sacramento nonattainment area, except for the attainment and RFP demonstration portions of the ozone plan | Sacramento Metropolitan Area | January 10, 1984 | July 30, 1984, 49 FR 30300 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(142).
Revisions to the 1982 ozone and CO Air Quality Plan for the Sacramento nonattainment area | Sacramento Metropolitan Area | February 10, 1984 | July 30, 1984, 49 FR 30300 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(143).
Emission Inventory, 1976 for the Sacramento Metropolitan Area | Sacramento Metropolitan Area | October 9, 1980 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(109)(ii).
Air Quality Plan Technical Appendix, January 1979 for the Sacramento Metropolitan Area | Sacramento Metropolitan Area | October 9, 1980 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(109)(iii).
The Sacramento Valley Air Basin Control Strategy: those portions pertaining to the Sacramento Metropolitan Area | Sacramento Metropolitan Area | November 13, 1979 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | This plan is chapter 13 of the Comprehensive Revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(91)(i).
Part IX—Sacramento Valley Air Basin | Sacramento Valley Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Western Nevada County 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area | Western Nevada County | March 23, 2021 | August 3, 2022, 87 FR 47354 | Adopted by the Northern Sierra AQMD on January 25, 2021. Submitted on March 23, 2021 as an attachment to a letter dated March 22, 2021. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(585)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Certification of Emissions Statements Rule Adequacy | Western Nevada County | March 23, 2021 | July 29, 2022, 87 FR 45657 | Adopted by the Northern Sierra AQMD on January 25, 2021. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(582)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Ozone Attainment Plan, Western Nevada County, State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Primary Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard of .075 ppm | Western Nevada County | December 7, 2018 | May 21, 2021, 86 FR 27524 | Adopted by the Northern Sierra AQMD on October 22, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(554)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Western Nevada County 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area | Western Nevada County | June 7, 2018 | January 15, 2020, 85 FR 2313 | Adopted by the Northern Sierra AQMD on March 26, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(529)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Western Nevada County 8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area | Western Nevada County | February 7, 2008 | April 13, 2015, 80 FR 19544 | Adopted by Northern Sierra AQMD on June 25, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(456)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(9)(iii).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Western Nevada County 8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area Negative Declarations for Control Techniques Guidelines Issued in 2006 and 2007 | Western Nevada County | August 14, 2008 | April 18, 2012, 77 FR 23130 | Adopted by Northern Sierra AQMD on May 19, 2008. See 52.222(a)(9)(i).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Western Nevada County 8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area Negative Declarations for Control Techniques Guidelines Issued in 2008 | Western Nevada County | May 17, 2011 | April 18, 2012, 77 FR 23130 | Adopted by Northern Sierra AQMD on April 25, 2011. See 52.222(a)(9)(ii).
| Yuba City-Marysville PM 2.5 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, including motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) and attainment year emission inventory, dated April 1, 2013 | Yuba City-Marysville | May 23, 2013 | December 9, 2014, 79 FR 72981 | Adopted by Feather River AQMD on April 1, 2013. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(446)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Feather River AQMD Board of Directors Resolution 2013-01, dated April 1, 2013 | Yuba City-Marysville | May 23, 2013 | December 9, 2014, 79 FR 72981 | Resolution adopting the PM 2.5 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, including attainment year emissions inventory and MVEBs for 2017 and 2024. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(446)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution Number 13-14, dated April 25, 2013 | Yuba City-Marysville | May 23, 2013 | December 9, 2014, 79 FR 72981 | Resolution is titled “Yuba City-Marysville PM 2.5 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(446)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution Number 14-6, dated February 20, 2014 | Yuba City-Marysville | May 23, 2013 | December 9, 2014, 79 FR 72981 | Resolution is titled “Minor Updates to Yuba City-Marysville PM 2.5 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(446)(ii)(B)( 2 ).
Table 5—North Central Coast Air Basin
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Explanation
2007 Federal Maintenance Plan for Maintaining the National Ozone Standard in the Monterey Bay Region (Monterey Maintenance Plan), excluding Appendix A | Monterey Bay Region | December 19, 2007 | December 17, 2009, 74 FR 66916 | Adopted by Monterey Bay Unified APCD on March 21, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(367)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Monterey Bay Unified APCD Board of Directors Certified Minutes and Resolution dated March 21, 2007 | Monterey Bay Region | December 19, 2007 | December 17, 2009, 74 FR 66916 | Resolution adopting the Monterey Maintenance Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(367)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Letter dated May 10, 2007, from Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) to Monterey Bay Unified APCD | Monterey Bay Region | December 19, 2007 | December 17, 2009, 74 FR 66916 | Letter confirms AMBAG's approval of the Monterey Maintenance Plan on May 9, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(367)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order #G-07-68, dated December 19, 2007 | Monterey Bay Region | December 19, 2007 | December 17, 2009, 74 FR 66916 | Executive order adopting the Monterey Maintenance Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(367)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
Maintenance Plan for the redesignation of the Monterey Bay Area | Monterey Bay Region | November 14, 1994 | January 17, 1997, 62 FR 2597 | Adopted on October 19, 1994 by the Monterey Bay Unified APCD, October 12, 1994 by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, and October 6, 1994 by the Council of San Benito County Governments. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(209)(i)(A).
Redesignation Request and Request for Exemption from NO X RACT Rule Requirements for the Monterey Bay Region (March 1994) | Monterey Bay Region | July 14, 1994 | January 17, 1997, 62 FR 2597 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(209).
The 1982 Ozone Air Quality Plan for the Monterey Bay Region | Monterey Bay Region | December 31, 1982 and January 14, 1983 | December 20, 1983, 48 FR 56215 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(128).
The North Central Coast Air Basin Strategy | North Central Coast Air Basin | September 12, 1979 | December 4, 1980, 45 FR 80279 | This plan is chapter 10 of the comprehensive revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(57).
Part IV—North Central Coast Air Basin | North Central Coast Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Table 6—San Diego Air Basin
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Explanation
The 1982 Ozone and CO Air Quality Plan for the San Diego Air Basin | San Diego Air Basin | February 28 and August 12, 1983 | December 28, 1983, 48 FR 57130 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(136).
Supplemental material for the San Diego Nonattainment Area Plan | San Diego Air Basin | July 13, 1981 | March 10, 1982, 47 FR 10206 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(113).
Supplemental material for the San Diego Nonattainment Area Plan | San Diego Air Basin | August 31, 1981 | March 10, 1982, 47 FR 10206 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(114).
Supplemental material for the San Diego Nonattainment Area Plan | San Diego Air Basin | December 8, 1981 | March 10, 1982, 47 FR 10206 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(115).
| The San Diego Air Basin Control Strategy, except the inspection/maintenance portion | San Diego Air Basin | July 5, 1979 | April 14, 1981, 46 FR 21749 | This is chapter 14 of the Comprehensive Revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Additional documents were also submitted as appendices. Those portions of the San Diego Air Basin Control Strategy, including Appendices, identified by Table 14-1, “Location of Plan Elements Which Meet Clean Air Act Requirements” (pages 6-7), comprise the submitted nonattainment area plan, except the inspection/maintenance portion. The remaining portions are for informational purposes only. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(62).
Part VII—San Diego Air Basin | San Diego Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County (October 2020), excluding the “Emissions Statement Rule Certification,” and the contingency measure element | San Diego County | January 12, 2021 | March 1, 2024, 89 FR 15035 | Adopted by the San Diego County APCD on October 14, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(581)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Resolution 20-166, dated October 14, 2020, adopting the “2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County (October 2020),” including a commitment to achieve emissions reductions of 1.7 tons per day of NO X by 2032 through adoption to amendments to San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rules 69.4.1 and 69.2.1 and to the adoption of new San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 69.2.2 | San Diego County | January 12, 2021 | March 1, 2024, 89 FR 15035 | Adopted by the San Diego County APCD on October 14, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(581)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
Letter dated July 31, 2023, from Ted Anasis, Manager, Airport Planning, San Diego International Airport, to Nick Cormier, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District | San Diego County | July 31, 2023 | March 1, 2024, 89 FR 15035 | Commitment in support of general conformity budget in 2020 Ozone Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(581)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
Letter dated August 16, 2023, from J.C. Golumbfskie-Jones, Fleet Environmental Director, Commander Navy Region Southwest, Department of the Navy, to Paula Forbis, Air Pollution Control Officer, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District | San Diego County | August 16, 2023 | March 1, 2024, 89 FR 15035 | Commitment in support of general conformity budget in 2020 Ozone Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(581)(ii)(A)( 5 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 20-29, dated November 19, 2020, adopting a commitment to achieve an aggregate emissions reduction of 4.0 tons per day of NO X in San Diego County by 2032 and a commitment from the California Air Resources Board to propose to the Board the Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation, Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, and Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection Program and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program | San Diego County | January 12, 2021 | March 1, 2024, 89 FR 15035 | Adopted by the California Air Resources Board on November 19, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(581)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Emissions Statement Rule Certification | San Diego County | January 12, 2021 | July 29, 2022, 87 FR 45657 | Adopted by the San Diego County APCD on October 14, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(581)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Negative Declaration for Oil and Natural Gas CTG | San Diego County | December 29, 2020 | November 4, 2024, 89 FR 87505 | Submitted on December 29, 2020, as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020, in the 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County, adopted on October 14, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(5)(ii) and (iii).
Negative Declaration for Major Non-CTG Stationary Sources of VOC | San Diego County | December 29, 2020 | January 17, 2023, 88 FR 2538 | Submitted on December 29, 2020, as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020, in the 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County, adopted on October 14, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(584)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
Negative Declaration for “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products,” EPA-450/2-78-029, December 1978 | San Diego County | December 29, 2020 | June 29, 2022, 87 FR 38665 | Submitted on December 29, 2020, as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020, in the 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County, adopted on October 14, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(584)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
| Negative Declaration for “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008 (Tables 3-6) | San Diego County | December 29, 2020 | June 29, 2022, 87 FR 38665 | Submitted on December 29, 2020, as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020, in the 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County, adopted on October 14, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(584)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Negative Declaration for “Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials,” EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008 | San Diego County | December 29, 2020 | June 29, 2022, 87 FR 38665 | Submitted on December 29, 2020, as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020, in the 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County, adopted on October 14, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(584)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for San Diego County except those portions addressing the following source categories: Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline Service Stations (EPA-450/R-75-102); Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals (EPA-450/2-77-026); Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products (EPA-450/2-78-029); Industrial Cleaning Solvents (EPA-453/R-06-001); Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials (EPA-453/R-08-004); Non-CTG major sources of VOC; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003) Table 3—Plastic Parts and Products, Table 4—Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts, Table 5—Pleasure Craft Surface Coating, and Table 6—Motor Vehicle Materials | San Diego County | April 12, 2017 | December 3, 2020, 85 FR 77996 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(547)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 52.222(a)(5)(ii).
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997 National Ozone Standard for San Diego County, including motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) and inventories | San Diego County | December 28, 2012 | June 4, 2013, 78 FR 33230 | Adopted by San Diego County APCD on December 5, 2012. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(425)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
San Diego APCD Resolution Number 12-175, dated December 5, 2012. “Resolution Adopting the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997 National Ozone Standard for San Diego County,” including inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2020 and 2025 | San Diego County | December 28, 2012 | June 4, 2013, 78 FR 33230 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(425)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 12-36, dated December 6, 2012 | San Diego County | December 28, 2012 | June 4, 2013, 78 FR 33230 | Resolution is titled “Approval of the San Diego 8-Hour Ozone SIP Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(425)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for San Diego County, including motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2010 and 2014, and Resolution #02-389 | San Diego County | December 20, 2002 | June 26, 2003, 68 FR 37976 | Adopted by San Diego County APCD on December 11, 2002. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(313)(i)(A)( 1 ).
San Diego County Air Pollution Control Board, Resolution 97-337, Resolution Certifying the Negative Declaration for Control Technique Guideline (CTG) Sources | San Diego County | February 25, 1998 | September 23, 1998, 63 FR 50764 | Negative declarations for Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing (distillation), synthetic organic chemical manufacturing (reactors), wood furniture, plastic parts coatings (business machines), plastic parts coatings (other), offset lithography, industrial wastewater, autobody refinishing, and volatile organic liquid storage adopted on October 22, 1997. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(5)(i).
Emissions inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress plan, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in “1994 Ozone Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans for San Diego County” | San Diego County | November 15, 1994 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by San Diego County APCD on November 1, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(C)( 1 ).
Table 7—San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Explanation
Bay Area Winter Emissions Inventory for Primary PM 2.5 & PM Precursors: Year 2010 | San Francisco Bay Area | January 14, 2013 | March 14, 2014, 79 FR 14404; corrected at 79 FR 25014 (May 2, 2014 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(436)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
| Certification that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Existing NNSR Program Addresses the 2015 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule | San Francisco Bay Area | October 6, 2021 | May 9, 2023, 88 FR 29825 | Adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District on September 1, 2021. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(595)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Clean Air Act Emissions Statement Certification | San Francisco Bay Area | August 3, 2020 | July 29, 2022, 87 FR 45657 | Adopted by San Francisco Bay Area AQMD on July 15, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(574)(ii)(C)( 1 ).
The San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Conformity Procedures (February 26, 2020) and San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Interagency Consultation Procedures (February 26, 2020) | San Francisco Bay Area | May 17, 2021 | December 28, 2023, 88 FR 89587 | Adopted by Bay Area AQMD on March 4, 2020, by Association of Bay Area Governments on April 23, 2020, and by Metropolitan Transportation Commission on February 26, 2020. Submitted electronically on May 17, 2021, by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated May 6, 2021. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(608)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
The San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Interagency Consultation Procedures | San Francisco Bay Area | December 16, 1996 | October 21, 1997, 62 FR 54587 | Adopted by Bay Area AQMD on November 6, 1996. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(243)(i)(A)( 2 ). Superseded by approval of the revised conformity procedures and interagency consultation procedures at 72 FR 58013 (October 12, 2007) except for the MOU regarding conformity analyses in eastern Solano County—see 72 FR 58013, at 58014, footnote #2 (October 12, 2007).
San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-hour National Ozone Standard (Section 3: Emission Inventory; Section 5: Control Strategy, except subsection “Demonstrating Reasonable Further Progress” Appendix B: Control Measure Descriptions; Appendix C: Reasonably Available Control Measure Analysis; Appendix E: Further Study Measure Descriptions) | San Francisco Bay Area | November 30, 2001 | April 22, 2004, 69 FR 21717 | Adopted by Bay Area AQMD on adopted on October 24, 2001. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(323)(i)(A)( 1 ).
The following portions of the 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area: the 1995 baseline emissions inventory, the reasonable further progress demonstration, and the deletion of transportation control measures #6 and #16 | San Francisco Bay Area | August 13, 1999 | September 20, 2001, 66 FR 48340 | See 40 CFR 52.223(e).
Tables 10 and 12 of the San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard, June 1999, which detail the commitment to adopt and implement any combination of new control measures to achieve 11 ton per day reduction in VOC emissions by June 2000 | San Francisco Bay Area | August 13, 1999 | September 20, 2001, 66 FR 48340 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(283)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Contingency measures, Table 18 of the San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard, June 1999, “Post-Attainment Year (2000-2003) Inventory Reductions Reflected in the SIP” | San Francisco Bay Area | August 13, 1999 | September 20, 2001, 66 FR 48340 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(283)(i)(A)( 2 ).
Redesignation request for the San Francisco Bay Area and the Ozone Maintenance Plan for the National Ozone Standard | San Francisco Bay Area | November 5, 1993 | May 22, 1995, 60 FR 27028 | Adopted on September 1, 1993 by the Bay Area AQMD, September 22, 1993 by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and September 16, 1993 by the Association of Bay Area Governments. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(212)(i)(A).
Amendments to the San Francisco Bay Area Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the National Ozone Standard and 1990 Emissions Inventory | San Francisco Bay Area | December 28, 1994 | May 22, 1995, 60 FR 27028 | Adopted on September 7, 1994 by the Bay Area AQMD, October 5, 1994 by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and August 24, 1994 by the Association of Bay Area Governments. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(205)(i)(B)( 1 ).
The 1982 Ozone and CO Air Quality Plan for the San Francisco Bay Air Basin | San Francisco Bay Air Basin | February 4, 1983 | December 28, 1983, 48 FR 57130 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(135).
The San Francisco Bay Area Basin Control Strategy, including appendices | San Francisco Bay Air Basin | July 25, 1979 | March 19, 1982, 47 FR 11866 | This plan is chapter 15 of the Comprehensive Revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(72).
Part III—San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin | San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Plan for Attainment of the Federal Secondary Total Suspended Particulate Standard in Santa Clara County | Santa Clara County | March 16, 1981 | March 29, 1982, 47 FR 13140 | This plan is an addendum to the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Control Strategy (Chapter 15). See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(112).
Table 8—San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Explanation
California Air Resources Board Executive Order G-125-46, dated May 11, 1984 | Fresno County | June 11, 1984 | September 4, 1985, 50 FR 35796 | One of the revisions to the ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment area plans for the Fresno County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(161)(i)(A).
Letters from the County of Fresno to the Bureau of Automotive Repair dated March 14, 1984 and February 14, 1984 | Fresno County | June 11, 1984 | September 4, 1985, 50 FR 35796 | Letters requesting implementation of an I/M program in Fresno County. They are among the revisions to the ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment area plans for the Fresno County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(161)(i)(B).
County of Fresno Resolution File Number 18-13, dated February 14, 1984 | Fresno County | June 11, 1984 | September 4, 1985, 50 FR 35796 | One of the revisions to the ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment area plans for the Fresno County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(161)(i)(C).
Schedule to implement I/M in Fresno County, adopted on February 14, 1984 | Fresno County | June 11, 1984 | September 4, 1985, 50 FR 35796 | One of the revisions to the ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment area plans for the Fresno County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(161)(i)(D).
Air Quality Planning Addendum-Council of Fresno County Governments 1979-84 Overall Work Program | Fresno County | October 9, 1980 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(109)(i).
Federal 1992 Air Quality Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide and Appendices | Fresno Urbanized Area | December 28, 1992 | March 31, 1998, 63 FR 15305 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on November 18, 1992. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(252)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Supplemental material for the Kern County Nonattainment Area Plan | Kern County Nonattainment Area | March 4, 1982 | December 14, 1982, 47 FR 55919 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(123).
The 1982 Ozone and CO plan for San Joaquin County | San Joaquin County | December 1, 1982 | December 20, 1983, 48 FR 56215 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(129).
Selected portions titled “Amendments to the 15 μg/m ^3 SIP Revision and Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure for the 1997 PM 2.5 Standard,” and “Appendix B: 2022 Annual Demonstration Report: San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure Covering Projects Completed Through 12/31/2022,” of the Staff Report, “Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2024 Plan for the 2012 12 μg/m ^3 Annual PM 2.5 Standard and Amendments to the Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure and the 1997 15 μg/m ^3 State Implementation Plan Revision” | San Joaquin Valley | August 22, 2024 | November 19, 2024, 89 FR 91263 | Adopted July 25, 2024. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(623)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
The portion of CARB Resolution 24-10, dated July 25, 2024, adopting amendments to the Valley Incentive Measure to include quantification of emissions reductions of 5.0 tpd of NO X and 0.27 tpd of PM 2.5 in the year 2023 from existing agricultural equipment projects and substituting the reductions from the Valley Incentive Measure to meet the aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the attainment plan for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS approved in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)(9) | San Joaquin Valley | August 22, 2024 | November 19, 2024, 89 FR 91263 | Adopted July 25, 2024. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(623)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
PM 2.5 Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan Revision (May 18, 2023), excluding Rule 4901, “Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters.” | San Joaquin Valley | June 8, 2023 | October 4, 2024, 89 FR 80749 | Adopted by SJVUAPCD on May 18, 2023. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(618)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
CARB Resolution No. 21-21, September 23, 2021 | San Joaquin Valley | November 8, 2021 | December 14, 2023, 88 FR 86581 | Submitted as a revision to the 2018 PM 2.5 Plan that was submitted on May 10, 2019. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)( 9 ).
CARB, Staff Report, Proposed SIP Revision for the 15 μg/m ^3 Annual PM 2.5 Standard for the San Joaquin Valley, August 13, 2021 | San Joaquin Valley | November 8, 2021 | December 14, 2023, 88 FR 86581 | Submitted as a revision to the 2018 PM 2.5 Plan that was submitted on May 10, 2019. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)( 10 ).
| 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards (“2018 PM 2.5 Plan”), adopted November 15, 2018 (portions pertaining to the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS only, and excluding Chapter 4 (“Attainment Strategy for PM 2.5 ”), Chapter 5 (“Demonstration of Federal Requirements for 1997 PM 2.5 Standards”), Chapter 6 (“Demonstration of Federal Requirements for 2006 PM 2.5 Standards”), Chapter 7 (“Demonstration of Federal Requirements for 2012 PM 2.5 Standards”), Appendix D (“Mobile Source Control Measure Analyses”), Appendix H (“RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and Contingency”), and Appendix K (“Modeling Attainment Demonstration”)) | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | December 14, 2023, 88 FR 86581 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on November 15, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(B)( 7 ).
Attainment Plan Revision for the 1997 Annual PM 2.5 Standard, August 19, 2021, excluding Appendix H, section H.3 (“Contingency Measures”) | San Joaquin Valley | November 8, 2021 | December 14, 2023, 88 FR 86581 | Submitted as a revision to the 2018 PM 2.5 Plan that was submitted on May 10, 2019. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(B)( 8 ).
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 21-08-13, August 19, 2021 | San Joaquin Valley | November 8, 2021 | December 14, 2023, 88 FR 86581 | Submitted as a revision to the 2018 PM 2.5 Plan that was submitted on May 10, 2019. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(B)( 9 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Resolution No. 21-11-7, In the Matter of: State Implementation Credit for Residential Wood Burning Device Change-Out Incentive Measure | San Joaquin Valley | March 17, 2022 | November 28, 2023, 88 FR 83034 | Adopted by SJVUAPCD on November 18, 2021. Submitted on March 17, 2022, as an attachment to a letter dated March 16, 2022. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(606)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Certification that the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's Current Rules Address the Clean Air Act's Clean Fuels for Boilers Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard | San Joaquin Valley | August 3, 2021 | May 8, 2023, 88 FR 29539 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on June 17, 2021. Submitted on August 3, 2021, as an attachment to a letter of the same date. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(591)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Emissions Statement Program Certification for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard | San Joaquin Valley | August 3, 2020 | July 29, 2022, 87 FR 45657 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on June 18, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(574)(ii)(D)( 1 ).
Selected portions of CARB Resolution 19-26, adopted December 12, 2019, as revised and clarified by Executive Order S-20-031, adopted November 23, 2020 and Executive Order S-21-018, adopted October 6, 2021 (Amended Valley Incentive Measure), containing CARB's commitments to achieve 4.83 tpd of NO X reductions and 0.24 tpd of PM 2.5 reductions by the beginning of 2024, and 4.46 tpd of NO X reductions and 0.26 tpd of PM 2.5 reductions by the beginning of 2025, through implementation of the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, the Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions Program, or substitute measures | San Joaquin Valley | February 11, 2020 | December 27, 2021, 86 FR 73106 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(567)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards (“2018 PM 2.5 Plan”), adopted November 15, 2018 (portions pertaining to the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS only, and excluding Chapter 6 (“Demonstration of Federal Requirements for 2006 PM 2.5 Standards”), Chapter 7 (“Demonstration of Federal Requirements for 2012 PM 2.5 Standards”), and Appendix H, section H.3 (“Contingency Measures”)) | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | January 28, 2022, 87 FR 4503 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on November 15, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(B)( 6 ).
2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards (“2018 PM 2.5 Plan”), adopted November 15, 2018 (portions pertaining to the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS as a Moderate area, only, and excluding Chapter 5 (“Demonstration of Federal Requirements for 1997 PM 2.5 Standards”), Chapter 6 (“Demonstration of Federal Requirements for 2006 PM 2.5 Standards”) and Appendix H, section H.3 (“Contingency Measures”)) | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | November 26, 2021, 86 FR 67343 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on November 15, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(B)( 3 ).
2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM 2.5 Standard (“2016 PM 2.5 Plan”), adopted September 15, 2016, excluding section 3.7 (“Contingency Measures”) | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | November 26, 2021, 86 FR 67343 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on November 15, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(B)( 4 ).
| 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards (“2018 PM 2.5 Plan”), adopted November 15, 2018, portions of Appendix B (“Emissions Inventory”) pertaining to the 2013 base year emissions inventories as they relate to the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS only | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | November 26, 2021, 86 FR 67329 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on November 15, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(B)( 5 ).
2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards (“2018 PM 2.5 Plan”) (portions pertaining to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS only), excluding Chapter 5 (“Demonstration of Federal Requirements for 1997 PM 2.5 Standards”), Chapter 7 (“Demonstration of Federal Requirements for 2012 PM 2.5 Standards”), Appendix H, section H.3 (“Contingency Measures”), and Appendix I (“New Source Review and Emission Reduction Credits”) | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on November 15, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution No. 18-11-16, November 15, 2018. Commitments to take action on the rules and measures committed to in Chapter 4 of the Plan by the dates specified therein, and to submit these rules and measures, as appropriate, to CARB within 30 days of adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the State Implementation Plan. Commitments to achieve the aggregate emissions reductions of 1.88 tpd of NO X and 1.3 tpd of PM 2.5 by 2024 and, if the total emission reductions from the adopted rules or measures are less than those committed to in Chapter 4 of the 2018 PM 2.5 Plan, to adopt, submit, and implement substitute rules and measures that achieve equivalent reductions in emissions of direct PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in the same implementation timeframes or in the timeframes needed to meet CAA milestones | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | Resolution titled “In the Matter of: Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(B)( 2 ).
San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan (portions relating to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, only) (“Valley State SIP Strategy”) | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 25, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(536)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 18-49 with Attachments A and B, October 25, 2018. Commitments to begin the public process on, and bring to the Board for consideration, the list of proposed SIP measures outlined in the Valley State SIP Strategy according to the schedule set forth therein, and commitments to achieve the aggregate emissions reductions outlined in the Valley State SIP Strategy of 32 tpd of NO X and 0.9 tpd of PM 2.5 emissions reductions in the San Joaquin Valley by 2024 | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(536)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 19-1, January 24, 2019 | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Staff Report, Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards, December 21, 2018 | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Attachment A, Clarifying information for the San Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan regarding model sensitivity related to ammonia and ammonia controls | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
Staff Report, ARB Review of San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan, including Appendix B (“San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM 2.5 SIP, Additional Emission Reductions Achieved Towards Meeting Aggregate Commitment”), April 20, 2015 | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
Technical Clarifications to the 2015 San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)( 5 ).
“Appendix H, RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and Contingency, 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards, Appendix H Revised February 11, 2020” (portions pertaining to the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS only, and excluding section H.3 (“Contingency Measures”)) | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | January 28, 2022, 87 FR 4503 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)( 8 ).
| “Appendix H, RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and Contingency, 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards, Appendix H Revised February 11, 2020” (portions pertaining to the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS as a Moderate area, only, and excluding section H.3 (“Contingency Measures”)) | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | November 26, 2021, 86 FR 67343 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)( 7 ).
Appendix H, RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and Contingency, 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards, Appendix H Revised February 11, 2020, (portion pertaining to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, only, and excluding section H.3 (“Contingency Measures”)) | San Joaquin Valley | May 10, 2019 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)( 6 ).
Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for PM 2.5 Standards in the San Joaquin Valley | San Joaquin Valley | June 19, 2020 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on May 28, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(538)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 20-15, dated May 28, 2020, revising the aggregate emissions reductions commitment in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)(3) to 0.86 tpd of PM 2.5 | San Joaquin Valley | June 19, 2020 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(538)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
SJVUAPCD's commitments to adopt, submit, and implement substitute rules that will achieve equivalent reductions in emissions of direct PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in the same adoption and implementation timeframes or in the timeframes needed to meet CAA milestones, as stated on p. 4 of San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution 2012-12-19, dated December 20, 2012 were revised by California Air Resources Board Resolution 20-15, dated May 28, 2020, in paragraph (c)(539)(ii)(A)(2) of this section | San Joaquin Valley | March 4, 2013 | July 22, 2020, 85 FR 44192 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, excluding subchapters 3.4 (“Reasonably Available Control Technology”), 3.11.1 (“Emission Inventory Requirements”), 6.3.2 (“Reasonable Further Progress Requirements”), and 6.4 (“Contingency for Attainment”); appendix C (“Stationary and Area Source Control Strategy Evaluations”); and tables D-1 and D-4 through D-8 in attachment B (“San Joaquin Valley 8-Hr Ozone Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets”) of appendix D (“Mobile Source Control Strategy”) | San Joaquin Valley | August 24, 2016 | February 12, 2019, 84 FR 3302 | Adopted June 16, 2016. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(496)(ii)(B)( 3 ).
2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, subchapter 3.11.1 (“Emission Inventory Requirements”), only | San Joaquin Valley | August 24, 2016 | March 25, 2019, 84 FR 11198 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on June 16, 2016. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(496)(ii)(B)( 4 ). The approval action published on March 25, 2019 included subchapters 3.11.1 and 6.4, but subchapter 6.4 (“Contingency for Attainment”) was deleted without replacement at 87 FR 59688 (October 3, 2022).
2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, Chapter 3.4 and Appendix C only | San Joaquin Valley | August 24, 2016 | August 17, 2018, 83 FR 41006 | Adopted June 16, 2016. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(496)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution 16-6-20, June 16, 2016, commitment to adopt, implement and submit measures committed to in the 2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, only | San Joaquin Valley | August 24, 2016 | February 12, 2019, 84 FR 3302 | Resolution titled “In the Matter of: Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard” and adopted on June 16, 2016. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(496)(ii)(B)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 16-8, dated July 21, 2016 | San Joaquin Valley | August 24, 2016 | October 11, 2017, 82 FR 47145 | Resolution adopting the “2016 Ozone State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Valley”. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(496)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Staff Report, ARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,” section V.H (“Bakersfield Area Monitor”) and Appendix C (“U.S. EPA Letter Regarding Arvin Site Relocation”), only | San Joaquin Valley | August 24, 2016 | October 11, 2017, 82 FR 47145 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(496)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan, except for the subchapter titled “South Coast Commitment” in chapter 3 (“Proposed SIP Commitment”) | San Joaquin Valley | April 27, 2017 | February 12, 2019, 84 FR 3302; corrected May 3, 2019, 84 FR 19680 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on March 23, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
| California Air Resources Board Resolution 17-7, March 23, 2017, commitments to a rulemaking schedule and to achieve aggregate emission reductions of 8 tons per day of NO X in San Joaquin Valley by 2031, and the rulemaking schedule included in attachment A to Resolution 17-7, only | San Joaquin Valley | April 27, 2017 | February 12, 2019, 84 FR 3302; corrected May 3, 2019, 84 FR 19680 | Resolution titled “2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan chapter VIII (“SIP Elements for the San Joaquin Valley”) excluding subchapter VIII.D (“Contingency Measures”); chapter X (“Contingency Measures”) for implementation in San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standard; and Appendix A (“Nonattainment Area Inventories”), pages A-1, A-2 and A-27 through A-30, only | San Joaquin Valley | December 11, 2018 | March 25, 2019, 84 FR 11198; revised October 3, 2022, 87 FR 59688 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 25, 2018. Submitted electronically on December 11, 2018 as an attachment to a letter dated December 5, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)( 2 ). Geographic applicability of Chapter X was clarified at 87 FR 59688 (October 3, 2022). Subchapter VIII.D (“Contingency Measures”) of chapter VIII was deleted without replacement at 87 FR 59688 (October 3, 2022).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 18-50, including Attachments A (“Covered Districts”), B (“Menu of Enhanced Enforcement Actions”), and C (“Correction of Typographical Error”) | San Joaquin Valley | December 5, 2018 | March 25, 2019, 84 FR 11198 | Adopted on October 25, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2014 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP), dated June 19, 2014 | San Joaquin Valley | July 18, 2014 | August 17, 2018, 83 FR 41006 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on June 19, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(449)(ii)(D)( 1 ).
Appendix B Negative Declarations For Proposed Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to Address Federal Clean Air Act Requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), June 21, 2018 | San Joaquin Valley | June 29, 2018 | August 17, 2018, 83 FR 41006 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on June 21, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(507)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(8)(iii).
Certification that the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's Current NNSR Program Addresses the 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule | San Joaquin Valley | June 19, 2018 | December 13, 2018, 83 FR 64026 | Adopted by SJVUAPCD on April 19, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(511)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Attachment A to California Air Resources Board Resolution 15-50, “Updates to the Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM 10 , 2007 Ozone and 2012 PM 2.5 SIPs,” Table A-1 (Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2008 Ozone Plan (Tons per summer day) and Table A-3 (Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2008 PM 10 Maintenance Plan (Tons per annual day)) | San Joaquin Valley | November 13, 2015 | August 12, 2016, 81 FR 53294 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(476)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Attachment A to California Air Resources Board Resolution 15-50, “Updates to the Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM-10, 2007 Ozone and 2012 PM 2.5 SIPs,” Table A-2 (Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan (Tons per winter day)) | San Joaquin Valley | November 13, 2015 | August 31, 2016, 81 FR 59876 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(476)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
2012 PM 2.5 Plan (dated December 20, 2012), except for the motor vehicle emission budgets used for transportation conformity purposes | San Joaquin Valley | March 4, 2013 | August 31, 2016, 81 FR 59876 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on December 20, 2012. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution No. 12-12-19, dated December 20, 2012 | San Joaquin Valley | March 4, 2013 | August 31, 2016, 81 FR 59876 | Resolution is titled “In the Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2012 PM 2.5 Plan.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and measures by the dates specified in Chapter 5 of the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan to achieve the emissions reductions shown therein, and to submit these rules and measures to California Air Resources Board within 30 days of adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the SIP, or if the total emission reductions from the adopted rules are less than those committed to in the Plan, to adopt, submit, and implement substitute rules that will achieve equivalent reductions in emissions of direct PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in the same adoption and implementation timeframes or in the timeframes needed to meet CAA milestones, as stated on p. 4 of San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution 12-12-19, dated December 20, 2012 | San Joaquin Valley | March 4, 2013 | August 31, 2016, 81 FR 59876 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)(3). Note that SJVUAPCD's commitments to adopt, submit, and implement substitute rules were revised by California Air Resources Board Resolution 20-15, dated May 28, 2020, in paragraph (c)(539)(ii)(A)( 2 ). See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
| California Air Resources Board Resolution 13-2, dated January 24, 2013 | San Joaquin Valley | March 4, 2013 | August 31, 2016, 81 FR 59876 | Resolution is titled “San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan.” Adopted by California Air Resources Board on January 24, 2013. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Supplemental Document, Clean Air Act Subpart 4: The 2012 PM 2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM 2.5 Standard and District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) (dated September 18, 2014) | San Joaquin Valley | November 6, 2014 | August 31, 2016, 81 FR 59876 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on September 18, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(479)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution No. 14-09-01, dated September 18, 2014 | San Joaquin Valley | November 6, 2014 | August 31, 2016, 81 FR 59876 | Resolution is titled “In the Matter of: Authorizing Submittal of “Supplemental Document for the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan” to EPA.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(479)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 14-37, dated October 24, 2014 | San Joaquin Valley | November 6, 2014 | August 31, 2016, 81 FR 59876 | Resolution is titled “Supplemental Document for the San Joaquin Valley 24-Hour PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(479)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Report on Reductions Achieved from Incentive-based Emission Reduction Measures in the San Joaquin Valley, including appendices F-H | San Joaquin Valley | November 17, 2014 | August 12, 2016, 81 FR 53300 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 24, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(477)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter from David Warner, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, to Gerardo C. Rios, Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX, dated June 26, 2014 | San Joaquin Valley | June 26, 2014 | September 17, 2014, 79 FR 55637 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(400)(ii)(C)( 1 ).
2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, excluding section 4.4 (“Contingency Reductions”) | San Joaquin Valley | December 20, 2013 | April 5, 2016, 81 FR 19492 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on September 19, 2013 and approved by California Air Resources Board on November 21, 2013. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(470)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Letter and enclosures from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, dated June 19, 2014, excluding EMFAC2011 output files | San Joaquin Valley | June 19, 2014 | April 5, 2016, 81 FR 19492 | Supplemental information related to Appendix D (“VMT Emissions Offset Demonstration”) of the San Joaquin Valley 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(470)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-11-024, November 18, 2011 | San Joaquin Valley | November 18, 2011 | November 29, 2012, 77 FR 71109 | Resolution adopting specified portions of San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Rule 4694 as a revision to the SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(416)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution No. 11-08-20, August 18, 2011 | San Joaquin Valley | November 18, 2011 | November 29, 2012, 77 FR 71109 | Resolution adopting specified portions of San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Rule 4694 as a revision to the SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(416)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Negative declaration for Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturing and Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities | San Joaquin Valley | June 18, 2009 | March 1, 2012,77 FR 12491 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on April 16, 2009. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(8)(i).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Final Staff Report Negative Declaration for the CTG for Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires | San Joaquin Valley | June 20, 2011 | March 1, 2012,77 FR 12491 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD adopted on December 16, 2010. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(8)(ii).
2007 Ozone Plan (April 30, 2007) | San Joaquin Valley | November 16, 2007 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12652 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on April 30, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(397)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution No. 07-04-11a, April 30, 2007. Commitments to achieve emissions reductions as described in Table 6-1 of the 2007 Ozone Plan, as amended December 18, 2008 | San Joaquin Valley | November 16, 2007 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12652 | Resolution titled “In the Matter of: Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(397)(ii)(B)( 2 ).
Amendments to the 2007 Ozone Plan (amending the rulemaking schedule for Measure S-GOV-5 Organic Waste Operations) | San Joaquin Valley | April 24, 2009 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12652 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on December 18, 2008. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(408)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution No. 08-12-18. December 18, 2008 | San Joaquin Valley | April 24, 2009 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12652 | Resolution titled “In the Matter of: Proposed Amendment to the 2007 Ozone Plan to Extend the Rule Adoption Schedule for Organic Waste Operations.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(408)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan | San Joaquin Valley | November 16, 2007 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on September 27, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
| California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 07-28 with Attachments A and B, September 27, 2007. Commitments to achieve the total emissions reductions necessary to attain the Federal standards in the SJV air basin, which represent aggregate emissions reductions of 24 tons per day (tpd) of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 46 tpd of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) by 2023 from existing technologies and 81 tpd of NO X by 2023 from new technologies and to achieve 23 tpd of VOC by 2014; 88-93 tpd of NO X by 2017; 24 tpd of VOC and 56 tpd of NO X by 2020 as provided in California Air Resources Board Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, pp. 3-6 as modified by the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 20-21 as adopted by California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 09-34 (April 24, 2009) | San Joaquin Valley | November 16, 2007 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12652 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)( 4 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007, with Attachments A and B. Commitment to achieve the total emissions reductions necessary to attain the Federal standards in the SJV air basin, which represent 2.3 tons per day (tpd) of direct PM 2.5 and 17.1 tpd of nitrogen oxides by 2014 for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, as described in Resolution No. 07-28 at Attachment B, pp. 3-6, and modified by California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 09-34 (April 24, 2009) adopting “Status Report on the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy” and by California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-24 (April 28, 2011) adopting the “Progress Report on Implementation of PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions” | San Joaquin Valley | November 16, 2007 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-07-002, November 16, 2007 | San Joaquin Valley | November 16, 2007 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | Executive Order Relating to Approval of the State Strategy for California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Standards. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)( 3 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 07-20 with Attachment A, June 14, 2007 | San Joaquin Valley | November 16, 2007 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12652 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(397)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, Appendix A, page A-6, (dated June 20, 2011), adopted July 21, 2011 | San Joaquin Valley | July 29, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Commitment to develop and submit by 2020 revisions to the SIP that will: Reflect modifications to the 2023 emissions reduction target based on updated science and identify additional strategies and implementing agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by 2023 as given in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions on page A-8 | San Joaquin Valley | July 29, 2011 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12652 | Commitment included in 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, Appendix A. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)( 1 )( i ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011 | San Joaquin Valley | July 29, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Commitment to develop, adopt and submit by 2020 contingency measures to be implemented if advanced technology measures do not achieve the planned reductions and attainment contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA 172(c)(9), pursuant to CAA section 182(e)(5) as given on page 4 | San Joaquin Valley | July 29, 2011 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12652 | Commitment included in California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)( 2 )( i ).
| Commitment to update the air quality modeling in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan to reflect the emissions inventory improvements and any other new information by December 31, 2014 or the date by which state implementation plans are due for the expected revision to the Federal 8-hour ozone standard whichever comes first, as provided on page 3 | San Joaquin Valley | July 29, 2011 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12652 | Commitment included in California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)( 2 )( ii ).
Commitments to propose measures as provided in Appendix B, Table B-1 of the Progress Report on the Implementation of PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions (Release Date: March 29, 2011), adopted April 28, 2011, as amended by Appendix A, p. A-7 of the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins (Release Date: June 20, 2011), adopted July 21, 2011 | San Joaquin Valley | July 29, 2011 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12652; codified on November 27, 2012, 77 FR 70707 | Commitments included in California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)( 2 )( ii i).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-11-016, July 29, 2011 | San Joaquin Valley | July 29, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | Executive Order titled “Approval of Revisions to the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plans for the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
2008 PM 2.5 Plan (April 30, 2008) | San Joaquin Valley | June 30, 2008 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on April 30, 2008. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution No. 08-04-10, April 30, 2008. Commitments to achieve emissions reductions (including emissions reductions of 8.97 tpd of NO X , 6.7 tpd of direct PM 2.5 , and 0.92 tpd of SO X by 2014) as described in Table 6-3a (p. 6-11), Table 6-3b (p. 6-12), and Table 6-3c (p. 6-12) respectively of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and commitments to adopt and submit control measures as described in Table 6-2 (p. 6-9) of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, as amended June 17, 2010 | San Joaquin Valley | June 30, 2008 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | Resolution titled “In the Matter of: Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM 2.5 Plan.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 08-28, May 22, 2008, with Attachment A | San Joaquin Valley | June 30, 2008 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
2008 PM 2.5 Plan Amendment to Extend the Rule 4905 Amendment Schedule, June 17, 2010 | San Joaquin Valley | September 15, 2010 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(394)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Resolution 10-06-18, June 17, 2010 | San Joaquin Valley | September 15, 2010 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | Resolution titled “In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments to the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan to Extend the Rule Amendment Schedule for Rule 4905 (Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces).” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(394)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-10-003, September 15, 2010 | San Joaquin Valley | September 15, 2010 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | Executive Order relating to Approval of Amendments to the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan to Extend the Rule Amendment Schedule for Rule 4905 (Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces). See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(394)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Status Report on the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, pages 11-17, April 24, 2009 | San Joaquin Valley | August 12, 2009 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(393)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009 | San Joaquin Valley | August 12, 2009 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(393)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Progress Report on Implementation of PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions, Release Date: March 29, 2011 | San Joaquin Valley | May 18, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
| California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-24, April 28, 2011. Commitment to propose measures as described in Appendix B of the Progress Report on the Implementation of PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions | San Joaquin Valley | May 18, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-11-010, May 18, 2011 | San Joaquin Valley | May 18, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69896 | Executive Order titled “Approval of Revisions to the Fine Particulate Matter State Implementation Plans for the South Coast Air Quality Management Plans for the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) | San Joaquin Valley | June 18, 2009 | January 10, 2012, 77 FR 1417 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on April 16, 2009. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(407)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, section 6. Contingency Plan on pages 16 to 17 | San Joaquin Valley | November 16, 2007 | November 12, 2008, 73 FR 66759 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on September 20, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(i)(A)( 1 ).
2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, except for Appendices A through F | San Joaquin Valley | November 16, 2007 | November 12, 2008, 73 FR 66759 | Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on September 20, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board, Staff Report, Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan, Release Date: October 12, 2007, Appendix B Emission Inventory | San Joaquin Valley | November 16, 2007 | November 12, 2008, 73 FR 66759 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Letter dated May 13, 2008, from James N. Goldstene, California Air Resources Board, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, providing revised motor vehicle emission budgets for the 2007 San Joaquin Valley PM 10 Maintenance Plan | San Joaquin Valley | May 13, 2008 | November 12, 2008, 73 FR 66759 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
2003 PM 10 Plan, San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and Smaller (all except “Contingency Control Measures” section, pages 4-53 to 4-55), and “Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation,” dated April 2003 (Volume 3) | San Joaquin Valley | August 19, 2003 | May 26, 2004, 69 FR 30006 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on June 19, 2003. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(317)(i)(A)( 2 ).
Amendments to the 2003 San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and Smaller | San Joaquin Valley | December 30, 2003 | May 26, 2004, 69 FR 30006 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on December 18, 2003. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(327)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Amended 2002 and 2005 Ozone Rate of Progress Plan for San Joaquin Valley: Appendix E, “Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation” | San Joaquin Valley | April 10, 2003 | May 26, 2004, 69 FR 30006; codified at 69 FR 53835 (September 3, 2004) | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on December 19, 2002. Approved as part of the approval of the PM 10 plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(330)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Railroad Grade Separations TCM | San Joaquin Valley | March 2, 1995 | August 18, 1995, 60 FR 43015 | Revised ozone transportation control measure (TCM) for the San Joaquin Valley adopted on September 14, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(223)(i)(A).
Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, as contained in “San Joaquin Valley Revised Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plans” | San Joaquin Valley | July 12, 1996 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on September 20, 1995. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(238)(i)(B)( 1 ).
Control measures, emissions inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress plan, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in “San Joaquin Valley Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans” | San Joaquin Valley | November 15, 1994 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on November 14, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(D)( 1 ).
Negative Declaration Finding No Major Sources of Nitrogen Oxides in the following Categories: Nitric and Adipic Acid Manufacturing; Cement Manufacturing; Asphalt Batch Plants; Iron and Steel Manufacturing; and Driers | San Joaquin Valley | October 17, 1994 | August 15, 1997, 62 FR 43645 | Resolution adopted by San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD on September 14, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.222(b)(2)(i).
The 1982 Ozone and CO Clean Air Plan for the Fresno nonattainment area, except for the attainment and RFP demonstration portions of the plans | San Joaquin Valley | December 1, 1982 | July 30, 1984, 49 FR 30300 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(146).
| The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Control Strategy | San Joaquin Valley Air Basin | October 11, 1979 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | This plan is chapter 16 of the Comprehensive Revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Those portions of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Control Strategy identified by Tables 16-1a, 1b and 1c (Summary of Plan Compliance with Clean Air Act Requirements) except for those portions which pertain to Fresno County and the six transportation control measures for Stanislaus County, comprise the submitted plan. The remaining portions are for informational purposes only. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(71).
Part X—San Joaquin Valley Air Basin | San Joaquin Valley Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
The 1982 Ozone Air Quality Plan for Stanislaus County | Stanislaus County | December 1, 1982 | December 20, 1983, 48 FR 56215 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(129).
Table 9—South Central Coast Air Basin
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Explanation
Emission Inventories, 1-hour ozone maintenance demonstration, commitments to continue ambient monitoring and to track progress, and contingency measures, as contained in the Final 2001 Clean Air Plan | Santa Barbara County | February 21, 2003 | July 9, 2003, 68 FR 40789 | Adopted by Santa Barbara County APCD on December 19, 2002. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(314)(i)(A)( 1 ).
2001 Clean Air Plan Contingency Control Measures R-SC-1 (Architectural Coatings); N-IC-1 and N-IC-3 (Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines); N-XC-2 (Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters); R-SL-2 (Solvent Degreasers) [incorrectly identified as CAP Control Measure R-SL-1 in Table 4-3, “Proposed APCD Control Measures”]; R-SL-2 (Solvent Cleaning Operations); N-IC-2 (Gas Turbines); R-SL-4 (Electronic Industry-Semiconductor Manufacturing); N-XC-4 (Small Industrial and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters) | Santa Barbara County | May 29, 2002 | August 27, 2002, 67 FR 54963 | Adopted by Santa Barbara County APCD on adopted on November 15, 2001. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(298)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Control measures 333, 352, 353, T13, T18, T21, and T22; 1999 rate-of-progress plan; and motor vehicle emissions budgets (cited on page 5-4), as contained in the Santa Barbara 1998 Clean Air Plan | Santa Barbara County | March 19, 1999 | August 14, 2000, 65 FR 49499 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(275)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Baseline and projected emissions inventories, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in the Santa Barbara 1998 Clean Air Plan | Santa Barbara County | March 19, 1999 | August 14, 2000, 65 FR 49499 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(275)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Negative Declaration in Lieu of Rules and Negative Declaration Findings on: Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; Batch Processes; and Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations | Santa Barbara County | April 9, 2002 | August 26, 2002, 67 FR 54739 | Adopted by Santa Barbara County APCD on February 21, 2002. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(3)(ii).
Resolution of the Air Pollution Control District Board, County of Santa Barbara County, State of California, Resolution No. 96-5 | Santa Barbara County | July 12, 1996 | July 31, 1997, 62 FR 40934 | Negative declaration for Industrial Wastewater, Plastic Parts Coating: Business Machines, Plastic Parts Coating: Other, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Offset Lithography, and Shipbuilding Coatings adopted by Santa Barbara County APCD on May 16, 1996. See 40 CFR 52.222(a)(3)(i).
Emissions inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress plan, and control measures, as contained in “1994 Clean Air Plan for Santa Barbara County” | Santa Barbara County | November 14, 1994 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1187 | Adopted by Santa Barbara County APCD on November 2, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(211)(i)(A)( 2 ).
TCM-5, Improve Commuter Public Transit Service | Santa Barbara County | November 14, 1994 | May 1, 1995, 60 FR 21045 | Adopted by Santa Barbara County APCD on November 2, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(211)(i)(A)( 1 ).
The 1982 Ozone Air Quality Plan for Santa Barbara County | Santa Barbara County | December 31, 1982 | December 20, 1983, 48 FR 56215 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(130).
| Schedule to study Nontraditional Total Suspended Particulate Sources and commitment to implement control measures necessary to provide for attainment | Santa Barbara County | November 18, 1981 | May 5, 1982, 47 FR 19330 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(105).
Part V—South Central Coast Air Basin | South Central Coast Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
The South Central Coast Air Basin Control Strategy | South Central Coast Air Basin—Santa Barbara County | October 18, 1979 | May 5, 1982, 47 FR 19330 | This plan is chapter 17 of the Comprehensive Revision to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Those portions of the South Central Coast Air Basin Control Strategy identified by Tables 17-1 “Location of Plan Elements Which Meet Clean Air Act Requirements-Santa Barbara County” together with the rules comprise the submitted nonattainment area plan. The remaining portions are for informational purposes only. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(77)(ii).
The South Central Coast Air Basin Control Strategy | South Central Coast Air Basin—Ventura County portion | October 18, 1979 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | This plan is chapter 17 of the Comprehensive Revision to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Those portions of the South Central Coast Air Basin Control Strategy identified by Table 17-2 “Location of Plan Elements Which Meet Clean Air Act Requirements—Ventura County” together with the rules comprise the submitted nonattainment area plan. The remaining portions are for informational purposes only. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(77)(ii).
Certification of the Nonattainment New Source Review Program Compliance Demonstration for the 2015 Federal Ozone Standard | Ventura County | August 3, 2021 | August 15, 2023, 88 FR 55377 | Adopted by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District on June 8, 2021. Submitted on August 3, 2021, as an attachment to a letter of the same date. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(591)(ii)(C)( 1 ).
2020 Emissions Statement Certification for Ventura County, California | Ventura County | July 29, 2020 | July 29, 2022, 87 FR 45657 | Adopted by Ventura County APCD on July 14, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(579)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Final 2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan, excluding chapter 7 (“Contingency Measures”) | Ventura County | April 11, 2017 | February 27, 2020, 85 FR 11814 | Adopted by Ventura County APCD on February 14, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(532)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan, chapter III (“SIP Elements for Ventura County”), excluding section III.C (“Contingency Measures”); and pages A-7 through A-10 of appendix A (“Nonattainment Area Inventories”), only | Ventura County | December 11, 2018 | February 27, 2020, 85 FR 11814 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 25, 2018. Submitted electronically on December 11, 2018 as an attachment to a letter dated December 5, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
NNSR Compliance Demonstrations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS | Ventura County | August 31, 2018 | December 3, 2019, 84 FR 66074 | Adopted by the Ventura County APCD on July 31, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(528)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan Revision | Ventura County | July 18, 2014 | January 15, 2015, 80 FR 2016 | Adopted by the Ventura County APCD on June 10, 2014. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(449)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(10)(ii).
Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan Revision (2009 RACT SIP Revision) | Ventura County | November 17, 2009 | May 15, 2014, 79 FR 27761 | Adopted by the Ventura County APCD on September 15, 2009. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(437)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(10)(i).
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board Resolution approving and adopting the 2006 Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan Revision, dated June 27, 2006 | Ventura County | January 31, 2007 | April 21, 2009, 74 FR 18148 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(358)(i)(B)( 1 ).
Final Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 2006 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, including Tables A-1, A-2, B, C, and D, dated June 27, 2006 | Ventura County | January 31, 2007 | April 21, 2009, 74 FR 18148 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(358)(i)(B)( 2 ).
Attachment 3 to California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-07-003, Appendix H, Revised Proposed Revision to the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area (August 13, 2007) | Ventura County | November 30, 2007 | July 18, 2008, 73 FR 41277 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(355)(i)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-07-003, November 30, 2007; to Wit: Revised Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area | Ventura County | November 30, 2007 | July 18, 2008, 73 FR 41277 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(355)(i)(A)( 2 ).
| Commitments to adopt and implement control measures contained in the Ventura 1997 Air Quality Management Plan | Ventura County | November 5, 1997 | April 21, 1998, 63 FR 19659 | Adopted by Ventura County APCD on October 21, 1997. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(251)(i)(A)( 1 ).
“Revised Rule Adoption and Implementation Schedule” (Table 4-2) and “Architectural Coatings” (Appendix E-95, Tables E-43 and E-45) contained in “Ventura County 1995 Air Quality Management Plan Revision” | Ventura County | July 12, 1996 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by Ventura County APCD on December 19, 1995. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(238)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Control measures, emissions inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress plan, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in “1994 Air Quality Management Plan for Ventura County” | Ventura County | November 15, 1994 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by Ventura County APCD on November 8, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(E)( 1 ).
The 1982 Ozone Air Quality Management Plan for Ventura County, except for the attainment and RFP demonstration portions of the plan | Ventura County | December 31, 1982 | July 30, 1984, 49 FR 30300 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(145).
Appendix B-81, Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach: Ozone Formation, Transport, and Concentration Relationships in Ventura County; Update of Emission Reduction Required for Attainment of Ozone NAAQS | Ventura County | April 1, 1980 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(110)(i).
Letter: Jan Bush to Mike Redemer, January 23, 1981 | Ventura County | January 23, 1981 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(110)(ii).
Letter and enclosures: Janet Lyders to Mike Scheible, February 6, 1981 | Ventura County | February 6, 1981 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(110)(iii).
Letter and enclosures: Jan Bush to William Lockett, December 15, 1980 | Ventura County | December 15, 1980 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(110)(iv).
Letter and enclosures: Jan Bush to William Lockett, October 23, 1980 | Ventura County | October 23, 1980 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(110)(v).
Attachment V—Transportation Control Measures | Ventura County | July 16, 1981 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(111)(i).
Ventura Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix O, Plan for Attainment of Standards for Total Suspended Particulates In Ventura County: Interim Report, July, 1980 | Ventura County | July 16, 1981 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(111)(ii).
Attachment IV—Population Forecasts | Ventura County | July 16, 1981 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(111)(iii).
Attachment VI—Implementation of Emission Reductions Required for Attainment of TSP Standards | Ventura County | July 16, 1981 | July 1, 1982, 47 FR 28617 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(111)(iv).
Table 10—South Coast Air Basin
Name of SIP provision | Applicable geographic area | State submittal date | EPA approval date | Explanation
“Final South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 Standard,” portions of Chapter 3 (“Base-Year and Future Emissions”) and Appendix I (“Emissions Inventory”) pertaining to the 2018 base year emissions inventory | South Coast Air Basin | December 29, 2020 | June 3, 2025, 90 FR 23443 | Adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District on December 4, 2020. Submitted on December 29, 2020 as an attachment to a letter dated December 28, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(627)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Final Certification of Nonattainment New Source Review and Clean Fuels for Boilers Compliance Demonstration for 2015 8-hour Ozone Standard, excluding the “Clean Fuels for Boilers Compliance Demonstration” | South Coast Air Basin | August 3, 2021 | August 15, 2023, 88 FR 55377 | Relates to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. Adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District on June 4, 2021. Submitted on August 3, 2021, as an attachment to a letter of the same date. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(591)(ii)(B)( 2 ).
Final Certification of Nonattainment New Source Review and Clean Fuels for Boilers Compliance Demonstration for 2015 8-hour Ozone Standard, excluding the “Nonattainment New Source Review Compliance Demonstration” | South Coast Air Basin | August 3, 2021 | May 8, 2023, 88 FR 29539 | Adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District on June 4, 2021. Submitted on August 3, 2021, as an attachment to a letter of the same date. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(591)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 18-3, adopted March 22, 2018, as revised by Executive Order S-20-030, adopted November 23, 2020 | South Coast Air Basin | May 4, 2018 | January 15, 2021, 86 FR 3820 | Relates to CARB's South Coast On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Incentive Program. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(550)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Emissions Statement Certification | South Coast Air Basin | August 3, 2020 | July 29, 2022, 87 FR 45657 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on June 5, 2020. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(574)(ii)(E)( 1 ).
| Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2017) and appendices, excluding the portions of the plan and appendices related solely to PM 2.5 and Coachella Valley, and excluding the portion of chapter 6 that is titled “California Clean Air Act Requirements,” chapter 8 (“Looking Beyond Current Requirements”), chapter 9 (“Air Toxics Control Strategy”) and chapter 10 (“Climate and Energy”) | South Coast Air Basin | April 27, 2017 | October 1, 2019, 84 FR 52005 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on March 3, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(B)( 4 ).
The following portions of the “Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2017): Chapter 5 (“PM 2.5 Modeling Approach”), pages 5-17 through 5-27; Appendix III (“Base and Future Year Emission Inventory”), Attachment A (“Annual Average Emissions by Source Category in South Coast Air Basin”) for PM 2.5 , NO X , SO 2 , VOC, and NH 3 for years 2012, 2019, 2021, and 2022, and Attachment D, tables D-1, D-7, D-11, and D-13; Appendix IV-A (“SCAQMD's Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures”), Table IV-A-4 and Section 2 (“PM 2.5 Control Measures”); Appendix IV-C (“Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures”), Section III (“Reasonably Available Control Measure Analysis”); Appendix V (“Modeling and Attainment Demonstration”), Chapter 6 (“Annual PM 2.5 Attainment Demonstration”) and Attachment 7 (“Annual Unmonitored Area Analysis Supplement”); Appendix VI-A (“Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)/Best Available Control Measures (BACM) Demonstration”), pages VI-A-5 through VI-A-11, pages VI-A-22 through VI-A-32, pages VI-A-36 through VI-A-38, Attachment VI-A-1 (“Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations”), Attachment VI-A-2 (“Control Measure Assessment”), and Attachment VI-A-3 (“California Mobile Source Control Program Best Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Measures Assessment”); Appendix VI-B (“Impracticability Demonstration for Request for “Serious” Classification for 2012 Annual PM 2.5 Standard”); Appendix VI-C (“Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and Milestone Years”), pages VI-C-5 through VI-C-14, and Attachment VI-C-1 (“California Existing Mobile Source Control Program”); Appendix VI-D (“General Conformity and Transportation Conformity Budget”), pages VI-D-2 through VI-D-4, excluding tables VI-D-1 and VI-D-2; and Appendix VI-F (“PM Precursor Requirements”) | South Coast Air Basin | April 27, 2017 | November 9, 2020, 85 FR 71264 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on March 3, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(B)( 7 ).
| The following portions of the “Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2017)”: Chapter 5 (“PM 2.5 Modeling Approach”), pages 5-17 through 5-27; Appendix III (“Base and Future Emission Inventory”), Attachment A (“Annual Average Emissions by Source Category in South Coast Air Basin”) for PM 2.5 , NO X , SO 2 , VOC, and NH 3 for years 2012, 2017, 2019, and 2020 and Attachment D, tables D-1, D-3, D-7 and D-9; Appendix IV-A (“SCAQMD's Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures”), Table IV-A-4 and section 2 (“PM 2.5 Control Measures”); Appendix IV-C (“Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures”), section IV (“TCM Best Available Control Measure (BACM) Analysis for 2006 24-Hour and 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS”); Appendix V (“Modeling and Attainment Demonstration”), Chapter 7 (“24-hour PM 2.5 Demonstration”) and Attachment 8 (“24-hour Unmonitored Area Analysis Supplement”); Appendix VI-A (“Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)/Best Available Control Measures (BACM) Demonstration”), pages VI-A-13 through VI-A-42, Attachment VI-A-1 (“Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations”), Attachment VI-A-2 (“Control Measure Assessment”), and Attachment VI-A-3 (“California Mobile Source Control Program Best Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Measures Assessment”); Appendix VI-C (“Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and Milestone Years”), pages VI-C-5 through VI-C-8, and Attachment VI-C-1 (“California Existing Mobile Source Control Program”); Appendix VI-D (“General Conformity and Transportation Conformity Budget”), pages VI-D-2 through VI-D-6 and excluding tables VI-D-1 through 3; and Appendix VI-F (“Precursor Requirements”) | South Coast Air Basin | April 27, 2017 | February 12, 2019, 84 FR 3305; corrected at 84 FR 19680 (May 3, 2019). | Adopted by the South Coast AQMD on March 3, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
South Coast AQMD Resolution 17-2, March 3, 2017, commitments to develop, adopt, submit and implement the ozone control measures in tables 4-2 and 4-4 of chapter 4 in the AQMP as expeditiously as possible to meet or exceed the commitments identified in tables 4-9, 4-10 and 4-11 of the AQMP, and to substitute any other measures as necessary to make up any emissions reduction shortfall | South Coast Air Basin | April 27, 2017 | October 1, 2019, 84 FR 52005 | Resolution titled “A Resolution of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District) Governing Board certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP or Plan), and adopting the 2016 AQMP, which is to be submitted into the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).” Adopted by South Coast AQMD on March 3, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(B)( 5 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 17-8, March 23, 2017, commitments to develop, adopt, and submit contingency measures by 2028 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS if advanced technology measures do not achieve planned reductions | South Coast Air Basin | April 27, 2017 | October 1, 2019, 84 FR 52005 | Resolution titled “2016 Air Quality Management Plan for Ozone and PM 2.5 in the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley.” Adopted on March 23, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(A)( 5 ).
Letter from Dr. Michael T. Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, California Air Resources Board, to Amy Zimpfer, Associate Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, May 20, 2019 | South Coast Air Basin | May 20, 2019 | October 1, 2019, 84 FR 52005 | Letter clarifies that commitments in Resolution 17-8 to submit contingency measures by 2028 if advanced technology measures do not achieve planned reductions includes a contingency measures to satisfy the requirements in sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act, only. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(A)( 6 ).
Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan, subchapter titled “South Coast Commitment” in chapter 3 (“Proposed SIP Commitment”) | South Coast Air Basin | April 27, 2017 | October 1, 2019, 84 FR 52005 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on March 23, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(A)( 4 ).
| California Air Resources Board Resolution 17-7, March 23, 2017, commitments to a rulemaking schedule; to achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 113 tons per day (tpd) of NO X and 50 to 51 tpd of VOC in the South Coast by 2023, and 111 tpd of NO X and 59 to 60 tpd of VOC in the South Coast by 2031; and the rulemaking schedule included in attachment A to Resolution 17-7, only | South Coast Air Basin | April 27, 2017 | October 1, 2019, 84 FR 52005 | Resolution titled “2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan.” Adopted on March 23, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
Updated Federal 1979 1-Hour Ozone Standard Attainment Demonstration (November 2018) | South Coast Air Basin | December 20, 2018 | October 1, 2019, 84 FR 52005 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on November 2, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(525)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan, excluding chapters II through VIII, and chapter X, and excluding pages A-3 through A-30 of appendix A (“Nonattainment Area Inventories”) | South Coast Air Basin | December 11, 2018 | October 1, 2019, 84 FR 52005 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 25, 2018. Submitted electronically on December 11, 2018 as an attachment to a letter dated December 5, 2018. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
Letter dated March 14, 2018 from Philip Fine, Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, South Coast AQMD, to Amy Zimpfer, Associate Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX | South Coast Air Basin | March 14, 2018 | February 12, 2019, 84 FR 3305; corrected at 84 FR 19680 (May 3, 2019) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(B)( 2 ).
Letter dated June 15, 2018 from Philip Fine, Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, South Coast AQMD, to Amy Zimpfer, Associate Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, regarding “Condensable and Filterable Portions of PM 2.5 Emissions in the 2016 AQMD” | South Coast Air Basin | June 15, 2018 | February 12, 2019, 84 FR 3305; corrected at 84 FR 19680 (May 3, 2019) | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(B)( 3 ).
Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) Compliance Demonstration for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) | South Coast Air Basin | November 16, 2017 | December 13, 2018, 83 FR 64026 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on July 7, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(510)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
2016 AQMP Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration (May 22, 2014) | South Coast Air Basin | July 18, 2014 | September 20, 2017, 82 FR 43850 | Relates to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(449)(ii)(C)( 1 ).
Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the NO X RECLAIM Program (May 2017), excluding Appendices A and B | South Coast Air Basin | July 27, 2017 | September 20, 2017, 82 FR 43850 | Relates to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. Submitted as attachment B to agenda item No. 35, South Coast AQMD Board meeting, July 17, 2017. Appendices A and B include permit conditions for certain stationary sources. The permit conditions are listed elsewhere in part 52, subpart F. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(492)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Negative Declaration for Control Techniques Guidelines of Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Repair Facilities, and Paper, Film and Foil Coatings (May 2017) | South Coast Air Basin | July 27, 2017 | September 20, 2017, 82 FR 43850 | Relates to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. Submitted as attachment C to agenda item No. 35, South Coast AQMD Board meeting, July 17, 2017. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(492)(ii)(A)( 2 ) and 40 CFR 52.222(a)(13)(i).
2015 Supplement to the 24-Hour PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (February 2015), excluding Attachment C (“New Transportation Conformity Budgets for 2015”). South Coast AQMD's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and measures in accordance with the schedule provided in Chapter 4 of the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan as modified by Table F-1 in Attachment F to the 2015 Supplement, to achieve the emissions reductions shown therein, and to submit these rules and measures to CARB within 30 days of adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the SIP, as stated on pp. 7-8 of South Coast AQMD Resolution 12-19 and modified by South Coast AQMD Resolution 15-3, excluding all commitments pertaining to control measure IND-01 (Backstop Measures for Indirect Sources of Emissions from Ports and Port-Related Facilities) | South Coast Air Basin | March 4, 2015 | April 14, 2016, 81 FR 22025 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(471)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
South Coast AQMD Resolution No. 15-3, dated February 6, 2015 | South Coast Air Basin | March 4, 2015 | April 14, 2016, 81 FR 22025 | Resolution approving the 2015 Supplement to the 24-Hour PM 2.5 SIP for the South Coast Air Basin. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(471)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
| California Air Resources Board Resolution 15-2, dated February 19, 2015 | South Coast Air Basin | March 4, 2015 | April 14, 2016, 81 FR 22025 | Resolution adopting “Minor Revision to the South Coast Air Basin 2012 PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(471)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
The following portions of the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (December 2012): PM 2.5 -related portions of chapter 4 (“Control Strategy and Implementation”); Appendix III (“Base and Future Year Emissions Inventory”); Appendix IV-A (“District's Stationary Source Control Measures”); and Appendix V (“Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations”). South Coast AQMD's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and measures in accordance with the schedule provided in Chapter 4 of the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan as modified by Table F-1 in Attachment F to the 2015 Supplement, to achieve the emissions reductions shown therein, and to submit these rules and measures to CARB within 30 days of adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the SIP, as stated on pp. 7-8 of South Coast AQMD Resolution 12-19 and modified by South Coast AQMD Resolution 15-3, excluding all commitments pertaining to control measure IND-01 (Backstop Measures for Indirect Sources of Emissions from Ports and Port-Related Facilities) | South Coast Air Basin | February 13, 2013 | April 14, 2016, 81 FR 22025 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(439)(ii)(B)( 5 ).
The PM 2.5 -related portions of Appendix VI (“Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Demonstration”) of the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (December 2012) | South Coast Air Basin | February 13, 2013 | February 12, 2018, 83 FR 5923 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(439)(ii)(B)( 6 ).
The following portions of the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (December 2012): Ozone-related portions of chapter 4 (“Control Strategy and Implementation”); Appendix IV-A (“District's Stationary Source Control Measures”); Appendix IV-B (“Proposed Section 182(e)(5) Implementation Measures”); Appendix IV-C (“Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures”); and Appendix VII (“1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration”) | South Coast Air Basin | February 13, 2013 | September 3, 2014, 79 FR 52526 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(439)(ii)(B)( 2 ).
Appendix VIII (“Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstration”) (December 2012) of the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan | South Coast Air Basin | February 13, 2013 | September 3, 2014, 79 FR 52539 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(439)(ii)(B)( 4 ).
Letter and enclosures from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, dated April 3, 2014 | South Coast Air Basin | April 3, 2014 | September 3, 2014, 79 FR 52539 | Letter and enclosures provide supplemental information related to Appendix VIII (“Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstration”) of the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(439)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
South Coast AQMD Resolution No. 12-19, dated December 7, 2012 | South Coast Air Basin | February 13, 2013 | September 3, 2014, 79 FR 52526 | Resolution adopting the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(439)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env, Executive Officer, South Coast AQMD, May 1, 2014 | South Coast Air Basin | May 1, 2014 | September 3, 2014, 79 FR 52526 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(439)(ii)(B)( 3 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 13-3, January 25, 2013 | South Coast Air Basin | February 13, 2013 | September 3, 2014, 79 FR 52526 | Resolution adopting the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (December 2012) prepared by the South Coast AQMD. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(439)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, dated May 2, 2014 | South Coast Air Basin | May 2, 2014 | September 3, 2014, 79 FR 52526 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(439)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
South Coast AQMD Proposed Contingency Measures for the 2007 PM 2.5 SIP (dated October 2011) (“Contingency Measures SIP”) | South Coast Air Basin | November 14, 2011 | October 29, 2013, 78 FR 64402 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on October 7, 2011. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(432)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
South Coast AQMD Resolution No. 11-24, dated October 7, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | November 14, 2011 | October 29, 2013, 78 FR 64402 | Resolution adopting the Contingency Measures SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(432)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
| Letter dated April 24, 2013 from Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast AQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, Re: “Update of the 2012 RFP Emissions and 2015 Reductions from Contingency Measures for the 2007 Annual PM 2.5 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin,” including attachments | South Coast Air Basin | April 24, 2013 | October 29, 2013, 78 FR 64402 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(432)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-11-023, dated November 14, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | November 14, 2011 | October 29, 2013, 78 FR 64402 | Executive Order adopting the Contingency Measures SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(432)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Final PM 10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (December 2009) (“2009 South Coast PM 10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan”) | South Coast Air Basin | April 28, 2010 | June 26, 2013, 78 FR 38223 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on January 8, 2010. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(426)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
South Coast AQMD Resolution 10-1, dated January 8, 2010 | South Coast Air Basin | April 28, 2010 | June 26, 2013, 78 FR 38223 | Resolution adopting the 2009 South Coast PM 10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(426)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 10-21, dated March 25, 2010 | South Coast Air Basin | April 28, 2010 | June 26, 2013, 78 FR 38223 | Resolution adopting the 2009 South Coast PM 10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(426)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
Final South Coast 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (excluding those portions of Chapter 4 (“AQMP Control Strategy”) and Chapter 7 (“Implementation”) addressing District-recommended measures for adoption by California Air Resources Board and references to those measures (pp. 4-43 through 4-54 and the section titled “Recommended Mobile Source and Clean Fuel Control Measures” in table 7-3, pp. 7-8 and 7-9); those portions of Chapter 6 (“Clean Air Act Requirements”) and Chapter 7 (“Implementation”) addressing California Clean Air Act Requirements (pp. 6-13 through 6-22 and page 7-3); those portions of Chapter 4 (“AQMP Control Strategy”) addressing emission and risk reduction goals identified in the AQMP's proposed control measure MOB-03 (“Proposed Backstop Measures for Indirect Sources of Emissions from Ports and Port-Related Facilities”) (p. 4-24); the motor vehicle emissions budgets in Chapter 6 (“Clean Air Act Requirements”) (pp. 6-24 through 6-26), and Chapter 8 (“Future Air Quality—Desert Nonattainment Areas”)) | South Coast Air Basin | November 28, 2007 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928; revised at 82 FR 26854 (June 12, 2017) | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on June 1, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(398)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
South Coast AQMD Resolution 07-9, June 1, 2007. Commitments to achieve emissions reductions (including emissions reductions of 19.3 tpd of VOC and 9.2 tpd of nitrogen oxides by 2023) as described by South Coast AQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 07-9, p. 10, June 1, 2007, and modified by South Coast AQMD Governing Board Resolution 11-9, p. 3, March 4, 2011, and commitments to adopt and submit control measures as described in Table 4-2A of the Final 2007 AQMP, as amended March 4, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | November 28, 2007 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12674 | Resolution titled “A Resolution of the Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District certifying the final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, adopting the Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), to be referred to after adoption as the Final 2007 AQMP, and to fulfill USEPA Requirements for the use of emissions reductions form the Carl Moyer Program in the State Implementation Plan.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(398)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
South Coast AQMD Resolution 07-9, June 1, 2007. Commitments to achieve emissions reductions (including emissions reductions of 2.9 tons per day (tpd) of direct PM 2.5 , 2.9 tpd of SO X , 10.4 tpd of VOC and 10.8 tpd of nitrogen oxides by 2014) as described by South Coast AQMD Resolution No. 07-9, p. 10, June 1, 2007, and modified by South Coast AQMD Resolution 11-9, p. 3, March 4, 2011, and commitments to adopt and submit control measures as described in Table 4-2A of the Final 2007 AQMP, as amended March 4, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | November 28, 2007 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | Resolution titled “A Resolution of the Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District certifying the final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, adopting the Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), to be referred to after adoption as the Final 2007 AQMP, and to fulfill USEPA Requirements for the use of emissions reductions form the Carl Moyer Program in the State Implementation Plan.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(398)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 07-41, September 27, 2007 | South Coast Air Basin | November 28, 2007 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(398)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
| Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan | South Coast Air Basin | November 16, 2007 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on September 27, 2007. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(397)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 07-28 with Attachments A and B, September 27, 2007. Commitment to achieve the total emissions reductions necessary to attain the Federal standards in the South Coast air basin, which represent 152 tpd of NO X and 46 tpd of VOC by 2014, and 54 tpd of VOC and 141 tpd of nitrogen oxides by 2023 for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as described in Resolution No. 07-28 at Attachment B, p. 4, and modified by California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 09-34 (April 24, 2009) adopting the “Status Report on the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy” | South Coast Air Basin | November 16, 2007 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12674 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(397)(ii)(A)( 5 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 07-28 with Attachments A and B, September 27, 2007. Commitment to achieve the total emissions reductions necessary to attain the Federal standards in the South Coast air basin, which represent 6.1 tons per day (tpd) of direct PM 2.5 , 38.1 tpd of SO X , 33.6 tpd of VOC and 118.2 tpd of nitrogen oxides by 2014 for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, as described in Resolution No. 07-28 at Attachment B, pp. 3-5, and modified by California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 09-34 (April 24, 2009) adopting the “Status Report on the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy,” and by California Air Resources Board Resolution 11-24 (April 28, 2011) adopting the “Progress Report on Implementation of PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions” | South Coast Air Basin | November 16, 2007 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(397)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-07-002, November 16, 2007 | South Coast Air Basin | November 16, 2007 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | Executive Order Relating to Approval of the State Strategy for California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Standards. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(397)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
Progress Report on Implementation of PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions, Appendices B and C. Release Date: March 29, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | May 18, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(399)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-24, April 28, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | May 18, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(399)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-11-010, May 18, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | May 18, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | Executive order titled “Approval of Revisions to the Fine Particulate Matter State Implementation Plans for the South Coast Air Quality Management Plans for the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(399)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
Revisions to the 2007 PM 2.5 and Ozone State Implementation Plan for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (SIP Revisions), adopted on March 4, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | May 19, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(400)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
South Coast AQMD Resolution 11-9, March 4, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | May 19, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | Resolution titled “A Resolution of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board (AQMD) certifying the Addendum to Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, (AQMP), for a revision to the Final 2007 AQMP, to be referred to after adoption as the Revision to the Final 2007 AQMP.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(400)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
| California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-24, April 28, 2011. Commitment to propose measures as described in Appendix B of the “Progress Report on the Implementation of the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions” | South Coast Air Basin | May 19, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(400)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, Appendix A, page A-5 (dated June 20, 2011), adopted July 21, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | July 29, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(401)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
Commitment to develop and submit by 2020 revisions to the SIP that will reflect modifications to the 2023 emissions reduction target based on updated science, and identify additional strategies and implementing agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by 2023 as given in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision on page A-8 | South Coast Air Basin | July 29, 2011 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12674 | Commitment included in California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(401)(ii)(A)( 1 )( i ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | July 29, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(401)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
Commitment to develop, adopt and submit by 2020 contingency measures to be implemented if advanced technology measures do not achieve the planned emissions reductions, and attainment contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9), pursuant to CAA section 182(e)(5) as given on p. 4 | South Coast Air Basin | July 29, 2011 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12674 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(401)(ii)(A)( 2 )( i ).
Commitment to propose measures as provided in Appendix B Table B-1 of the Progress Report on the Implementation of PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions (Release Date: March 29, 2011), adopted April 28, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | July 29, 2011 | March 1, 2012, 77 FR 12674; codified on November 27, 2012, 77 FR 70707 | Commitment included in California Air Resources Board Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(401)(ii)(A)( 2 )( ii ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-11-016, July 21, 2011 | South Coast Air Basin | July 29, 2011 | November 9, 2011, 76 FR 69928 | Executive Order titled “Approval of Revisions to the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plans and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(401)(ii)(A)( 3 ).
South Coast AQMD Staff Report, SCAQMD 8-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Demonstration, including appendices, dated June 2006 | South Coast Air Basin | January 31, 2007 | December 18, 2008, 73 FR 76947 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(358)(i)(A)( 2 ).
South Coast AQMD Resolution 06-24, dated July 14, 2006 | South Coast Air Basin | January 31, 2007 | December 18, 2008, 73 FR 76947 | Resolution titled “A Resolution of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Board certifying that the SCAQMD's current air pollution rules and regulations fulfill the 8-hour Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements, and adopting the RACT SIP revision.” See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(358)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Notice of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act, SCAQMD 8-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP), dated June 2, 2006 | South Coast Air Basin | January 31, 2007 | December 18, 2008, 73 FR 76947 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(358)(i)(A)( 3 ).
EPA comment letter to South Coast AQMD dated June 28, 2006, on 8-hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology-State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) Analysis, draft staff report dated May 2006, from Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rulemaking Office, EPA to Mr. Joe Cassmassi, Planning and Rules Manager, South Coast AQMD | South Coast Air Basin | January 31, 2007 | December 18, 2008, 73 FR 76947 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(358)(i)(A)( 4 ).
2005 Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air Basin | South Coast Air Basin | February 24, 2006 | May 11, 2007, 72 FR 26718 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on March 4, 2005, and by California Air Resources Board on February 24, 2006. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(346)(i)(A)( 1 ).
| The following portions of the Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy (2003 State Strategy) for the California State Implementation Plan: State agency commitments with respect to the following near-term defined measures for the South Coast Air Basin: LT/MED-DUTY-1 [Air Resources Board (ARB)], LT/MED-DUTY-2 (Bureau of Automotive Repair), ON-RD HVY-DUTY-1 (ARB), ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3 (ARB), OFF-RD CI-1 (ARB), OFF-RD LSI-1 (ARB), OFF-RD LSI-2 (ARB), SMALL OFF-RD-1 (ARB), SMALL OFF-RD-2 (ARB), MARINE-1 (ARB), MARINE-2 (ARB), FUEL-2 (ARB), CONS-1 (ARB), CONS-2 (ARB), FVR-1 (ARB), FVR-2 (ARB), and PEST-1 (Department of Pesticide Regulation) in Resolution 03-22 Attachments A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-6 Table I-7 and in 2003 State Strategy Section I Appendix I-1 and Sections II and III | South Coast Air Basin | January 9, 2004 | March 10, 2009, 74 FR 10176 | Adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 23, 2003. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(339)(ii)(A).
The following portions of the South Coast 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP): Base year and future year baseline planning inventories (summer and winter) in AQMP Chapter III and Appendix III; South Coast AQMD commitment to adopt and implement control measures CTS-07, CTS-10, FUG-05, MSC-01, MSC-03, PRC-07, WST-01, WST-02, FSS-04, FLX-01, CMB-10, MSC-05, MSC-07, MSC-08, FSS-06, and FSS-07 in AQMP Chapter 4, Table 4-1, as qualified and explained in AQMP, Chapter 4, pages 4-59 through 4-61 and in Appendix IV-A Section 1, and South Coast AQMD commitments to achieve near-term and long-term emissions reductions through rule adoption and implementation in AQMP Chapter 4, Tables 4-8A and 4-8B; contingency measure CTY-01 in AQMP Chapter 9, Table 2 and in Appendix IV-A Section 2 (excluding FSS-05); nitrogen dioxide maintenance demonstration in AQMP Chapter 6 page 6-11; and motor vehicle emissions budget for nitrogen dioxide in year 2003 of 686 tons per day (winter planning inventory) in AQMP Chapter 6 Table 6-7 | South Coast Air Basin | January 9, 2004 | March 10, 2009, 74 FR 10176 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on August 1, 2003 and adopted by California Air Resources Board on October 23, 2003. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(339)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
South Coast 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP): Baseline and projected emissions inventories in AQMP Chapter III Tables 3-1A and 3-3A, in Appendix III Tables A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5, and A-7, and in Appendix V Attachment 4; South Coast AQMD commitment to adopt and implement control measures CMB-07, CMB-09, WST-01, WST-02, PRC-03, BCM-07, BCM-08, MSC-04, MSC-06, TCB-01 in AQMP Chapter 4 Table 4-8A, and in Appendix IV-A); PM-10 reasonable further progress in AQMP Chapter 6, Table 6-1 and in Appendix V Chapter 2; contingency measures CTY-01, CTY-14, TCB-01 in Appendix IV-A Section 2; PM-10 attainment demonstration in AQMP Chapter 5, and in Appendix V Chapter 2; and motor vehicle emissions budgets in “2003 South Coast AQMP On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets” | South Coast Air Basin | January 9, 2004 | November 14, 2005, 70 FR 69081 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on August 1, 2003, and by California Air Resources Board on October 23, 2003. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(339)(i)(A)( 1 ).
South Coast AQMD commitment to adopt and implement control measures, and reasonable further progress, as contained in the Implementation Status of the PM-10 Portion of the 1997 AQMP and PM-10 Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity use (2002 status report) | South Coast Air Basin | November 18, 2002 | April 18, 2003, 68 FR 19316 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on June 7, 2002. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(309)(i)(A)( 1 ).
South Coast AQMD commitment to adopt and implement control measures, as contained in the 1999 Amendment to the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, with respect to PM-10 | South Coast Air Basin | February 4, 2000 | April 18, 2003, 68 FR 19316 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(272)(i)(A)( 2 ).
| South Coast AQMD commitment to adopt and implement short- and intermediate-term control measures; South Coast AQMD commitment to adopt and implement long-term control measures; South Coast AQMD commitment to achieve overall emissions reductions for the years 1999-2008; South Coast AQMD commitment to implement those measures that had been adopted in regulatory form between November 1994 and September 1999; rate-of-progress plan for the 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2010 milestone years; amendment to the attainment demonstration in the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan for ozone; and motor vehicle emissions budgets for purposes of transportation conformity, as contained in the 1999 Amendment to the South Coast 1997 Air Quality Management Plan | South Coast Air Basin | February 4, 2000 | April 10, 2000, 65 FR 18903 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(272)(i)(A)( 1 ).
California Air Resources Board Executive Order G-99-037, dated May 20, 1999, State commitment to continue working with EPA and the affected parties to achieve the emission reductions identified in the SIP for federal measures, and to adopt by December 31, 2000, and submit as a SIP revision, a revised attainment demonstration for the federal one-hour ozone standard in the South Coast Air Basin, and adopt by December 31, 2001, control measures needed to achieve any additional emission reductions which are determined to be appropriate for California Air Resources Board; Attachment A, update to the 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast | South Coast Air Basin | May 20, 1999 | July 23, 1999, 64 FR 39923 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(265)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Appendix V, page V-5-4, Table 5-2—“Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons/day) Projected from 1993 through 2000 for the South Coast Air Basin” | South Coast Air Basin | February 5, 1997 | May 11, 2007, 72 FR 26718 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(247)(i)(A)( 6 ).
Baseline and projected emissions inventories, South Coast AQMD commitment to adopt and implement control measures, reasonable further progress, contingency measures, attainment demonstration, PM-10 attainment date extension request to December 31, 2006, as contained in the South Coast 1997 Air Quality Management Plan, with respect to PM-10 | South Coast Air Basin | February 5, 1997 | April 18, 2003, 68 FR 19316 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(247)(i)(A)( 4 ).
Baseline and projected emissions inventories and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in the South Coast 1997 Air Quality Management Plan for ozone | South Coast Air Basin | February 5, 1997 | April 10, 2000, 65 FR 18903 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(247)(i)(A)( 3 ).
Nitrogen dioxide attainment plan and maintenance plan, as contained in the South Coast 1997 Air Quality Management Plan | South Coast Air Basin | February 5, 1997 | July 24, 1998, 63 FR 39747 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on November 15, 1996. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(247)(i)(A)( 2 ).
Carbon monoxide emissions inventory, VMT forecasts and commitments to monitor actual VMT levels and revise and replace the VMT projections as needed in the future, as contained in the South Coast 1997 Air Quality Management Plan | South Coast Air Basin | February 5, 1997 | April 21, 1998, 63 FR 19661 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(247)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Revised rule adoption schedule | South Coast Air Basin | July 10, 1996 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on April 12, 1996. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(237)(i)(A)( 1 ).
15% Rate-of-Progress plan and Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area, as contained in the “Rate-of-Progress Plan Revision: South Coast Air Basin & Antelope Valley & Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area” | South Coast Air Basin | December 29, 1994 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on December 9, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(233)(i)(A)( 1 ).
Long Term Measures, Advance Technology for Coating Technologies (Measure ADV-CTS-01), Advance Technology for Fugitives (Measure ADV-FUG), Advance Technologies for Process Related Emissions (Measure ADV-PRC), Advance Technologies for Unspecified Stationary Sources (Measure ADV-UNSP), and Advance Technology for Coating Technologies (Measure ADV-CTS-02), as contained in the “1994 Air Quality Management Plan” | South Coast Air Basin | November 15, 1994 | August 21, 1995, 60 FR 43379 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on September 9, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(B)( 1 ).
| Control measures, emissions inventory, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in “1994 Air Quality Management Plan” | South Coast Air Basin | November 15, 1994 | January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1150 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on September 9, 1994. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(B)( 2 ).
The 1982 Ozone and CO Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin, except for: (i) The attainment and RFP demonstration portions of the plan and (ii) The emission reduction credit for the New Source Review control measure | South Coast Air Basin | December 31, 1982 and subsequently amended on February 15, and June 28, 1984 | July 30, 1984, 49 FR 30300 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(144).
Supplemental material for the South Coast Nonattainment Area Plan | South Coast Air Basin | July 24, 1981 | April 13, 1982, 47 FR 15785 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(116).
Supplemental material for the South Coast Nonattainment Area Plan | South Coast Air Basin | December 24, 1981 | April 13, 1982, 47 FR 15785 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(117).
Supplemental material for the South Coast Nonattainment Area Plan | South Coast Air Basin | February 18, 1982 | April 13, 1982, 47 FR 15785 | See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(118).
The South Coast Air Basin Control Strategy | South Coast Air Basin | July 25, 1979 | January 21, 1981, 46 FR 5965 | This plan is chapter 18 of the Comprehensive Revision to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Those portions of the South Coast Air Basin Control Strategy identified by Table 18-1, “Location of Plan Elements Which Meet Clean Air Act Requirements,” together with Rules 1115 and 1126, comprise the submitted nonattainment area plan control strategy. The remaining portions are for informational purposes only. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(65)(i).
Part VI—South Coast Air Basin | South Coast Air Basin | February 21, 1972 | May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842 | Part of original SIP submittal. See 40 CFR 52.220(b).
Final 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan—Los Angeles County (May 2012) | South Coast Air Basin—Los Angeles County portion | June 20, 2012 | March 12, 2014, 79 FR 13875 | Adopted by South Coast AQMD on May 4, 2012. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(433)(ii)(A)( 1 ).
South Coast AQMD Resolution 12-11, dated May 4, 2012 | South Coast Air Basin—Los Angeles County portion | June 20, 2012 | March 12, 2014, 79 FR 13875 | Resolution adopting the 2012 Los Angeles County Lead SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(433)(ii)(A)( 2 ).
California Air Resources Board Resolution 12-20, dated May 24, 2012 | South Coast Air Basin—Los Angeles County portion | June 20, 2012 | March 12, 2014, 79 FR 13875 | Resolution adopting the 2012 Los Angeles County Lead SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(433)(ii)(B)( 1 ).
* * * * *