Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Reclamation Bureau
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”), Department of Justice.
Final rule.
This final rule aligns the regulatory requirements for candidates for Temporary Immigration Judge (“TIJ”) appointments to mirror the regulatory requirements for permanent Immigration Judge (“IJ”) appointments, thus allowing the Attorney General and Director of EOIR to select TIJs from a larger pool of well-qualified candidates. Additionally, the Department of Justice (“the Department” or “DOJ”) is making various technical and non-substantive changes to its regulations.
This rule is effective August 28, 2025.
Stephanie Gorman, Acting Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone (703) 305-0289.
The Department issues this rule pursuant to section 103(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “the Act”), 8 U.S.C. 1103(g), as amended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (“HSA”), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (as amended). The HSA provides that EOIR exists within the Department and that it shall be “subject to the direction and regulation of the Attorney General” under section 103(g) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(g). Further, under the HSA, the Attorney General retains authority to “establish such regulations, . . . issue such instructions, review such administrative determinations in immigration proceedings, delegate such authority, and perform such other acts as the Attorney General determines to be necessary for carrying out” the Attorney General's authorities under the INA. HSA 1102(g)(2), 116 Stat. at 2274; INA 103(g)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1103(g)(2). Those authorities include conducting removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a (“section 240 removal proceedings”). Furthermore, in Attorney General Order Number 6260-2025, the Attorney General has exercised her authority under 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510 to delegate her authority to issue regulations related to immigration matters within the jurisdiction of EOIR to EOIR's Director.
EOIR administers the Nation's immigration court system. Cases generally commence before an IJ after the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) files a charging document with the immigration court.
Until 2025, the immigration court system faced an ever-growing backlog of pending cases. A November 2024 report by the Congressional Research Service found that this backlog “has grown each year since [fiscal year (“FY”)] 2006 and has ballooned in recent years,” reaching “1 million [pending cases] for the first time in FY2019” and “nearly 2.5 million at the end of FY2023.” Holly Straut-Eppsteiner, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN12463,
Effective November 1, 2028, EOIR will be authorized to employ “not more than 800 immigration judges, along with the necessary support staff.”
To assist with the immigration courts' substantial caseload, the EOIR Director (“Director”), with the approval of the Attorney General, may designate or select TIJs, which have the authority of an IJ to adjudicate assigned cases and administer immigration court matters. 8 CFR 1003.10(e). Prior to this final rule, individuals eligible to be designated as TIJs were limited to former IJs and Appellate Immigration Judges, EOIR administrative law judges (“ALJs”)
On May 29, 2024, the Department finalized a proposed rule that added a new regulatory definition of the term “noncitizen” to be used in place of the statutory term “alien” and added a new regulatory definition of the term “unaccompanied child” to be used in place of the statutory term “unaccompanied alien child,” as defined at 6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2).
Comments received on the 2014 TIJ IFR are organized by topic below. Most commenters were supportive of the IFR, stating, for example, that appointing TIJs will greatly assist with managing
Having considered the comments received on the 2014 TIJ IFR and EOIR's experience attempting to use TIJs under that IFR's provisions, the Department has determined that amendments are necessary. Although EOIR has begun to reduce the backlog of cases at the immigration court level and will continue to hire permanent IJs up to its statutory cap of 800, it recognizes that the sheer size of the backlog means that it cannot be expeditiously resolved solely through new hiring. Rather, EOIR must mobilize all available resources to ensure that cases are adjudicated timely and impartially consistent with its statutory and regulatory directives.
For example, under the current language of 8 CFR 1003.10(e), an ALJ who works at a Federal agency unrelated to immigration law and who may have fewer than 10 years of legal experience is eligible to serve as a TIJ, while a military or veterans appeals judge with a distinguished career, decades of legal experience, and a prior background in immigration law is not. Similarly, attorneys at agencies other than DOJ with many years of experience in immigration law are ineligible to serve as a TIJ unless they are currently ALJs. Non-Federal employees are categorically ineligible to serve as a TIJ, regardless of their credentials and even if they may be otherwise temporarily hired as special government employees under 18 U.S.C. 202(a). Given the continued need for qualified IJs and EOIR's experience hiring successful permanent IJs from a diverse array of backgrounds, the Department has determined that the regulatory restrictions on selecting TIJs in 8 CFR 1003.10(e) do not serve the interests of the agency and needlessly restrict its
Consequently, to help further address its caseload and expand the pool of potential candidates to be TIJs, the Department is amending the applicable TIJ regulation to remove regulatory constraints that go beyond the regulatory constraints on permanent IJ hiring. This rule will enable the Director, with the approval of the Attorney General, to staff the immigration courts with a sufficient number of well-trained and highly qualified judges to further reduce and ultimately eliminate the backlog of pending cases.
Specifically, the Department is amending the TIJ provisions at 8 CFR 1003.10(e)(1) to permit the Director, with the approval of the Attorney General, to designate or select any attorney to serve as a TIJ for a renewable term not to exceed six months, subject to all statutory and regulatory limits on temporary service. This language matches the only regulatory requirement the Department places on the hiring of permanent IJs.
The Department believes that the removal of categorical regulatory prohibitions is prudent to ensure that the Director and Attorney General may consider highly qualified candidates for TIJ appointments. For current Federal employees, the amendment removes restrictions limiting the availability of TIJ appointments to only certain types of Federal administrative judges.
Similarly, the Department no longer believes the restriction of TIJs to current Department employees with a threshold level of immigration law experience serves EOIR's interests. Immigration law experience is not always a strong predictor of success as an IJ, and EOIR has hired individuals from other Federal agencies and Department components without prior immigration experience who have become successful and exemplary IJs. Further, there is no clear reason to prohibit individuals at other Federal agencies with stellar credentials—
In selecting TIJs, the Department will continue to look for the most qualified individuals overall with primary weight given to an applicant's education and employment history. Further factors may carry additional weight, such as prior judicial or quasi-judicial service of any kind, service in State or Federal government, including trial or litigation experience, and immigration law experience. However, the Director and Attorney General retain discretion to consider any other factors deemed relevant and to make selections.
In short, the need for assistance in fairly and efficiently adjudicating immigration cases has only increased since EOIR first adopted a plan to utilize TIJs in 2014. However, that original plan has proven largely ineffectual, requiring the agency to update it in order to ensure a more robust applicant pool to provide the assistance EOIR needs. The changes described above will provide the greatest degree of flexibility to ensure EOIR will be able to utilize highly qualified individuals as TIJs to meet its needs.
This rule also rescinds certain non-substantive nomenclature changes implemented by the ECDM Final Rule. Specifically, this rule removes the defined terms “noncitizen” and “unaccompanied child” that were added by the ECDM Final Rule at § 1001.1(gg) and (hh), respectively. The ECDM Final Rule defined the term “noncitizen” to be synonymous with and to hold the same definition as the statutory term “alien” as defined at section 101(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3). 89 FR 46778. Additionally, the ECDM Final Rule defined the term “unaccompanied child” to be synonymous with and hold the same definition as the statutory term “unaccompanied alien child” as defined at 6 U.S.C 279(g)(2).
The Department is now removing these definitions and the use of these terms from its regulations to avoid the confusion generated by introducing superfluous regulatory terms when there are statutory terms with the same meaning. The notice of proposed rulemaking preceding the ECDM Final Rule asserted that adding these terms would be “more consistent with current terminology usage.” Appellate Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immigration Proceedings; Administrative Closure, 88 FR 62242, 62273 (Sept. 8, 2023). To the contrary, the terms “noncitizen” and “unaccompanied child” are inconsistent with the current terminology usage embraced by Congress, as evidenced by the statutory terms defined in the INA and uniformly used throughout title 8 of the United States Code.
Furthermore, the terms are also inconsistent with other Department-sanctioned terminology and recent EOIR guidance.
Further exacerbating the risk of confusion, the term “noncitizen” is not a precise synonym for the term “alien.” The INA defines the term “alien” to mean a person who is neither a citizen nor a national of the United States. INA 101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3). The term “noncitizen” does not recognize the full scope of people who are “aliens” because the term “noncitizen” includes “national[s] of the United States,” which are those “who, though not [ ] citizen[s] of the United States, owe[ ] permanent allegiance to the United States.” INA 101(a)(22), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22). Thus, a plain language understanding of the term “noncitizen” is incongruous with its given definition in the ECDM Final Rule. Similarly, the term “unaccompanied alien child” has a specific statutory definition,
By contrast, the term “alien” has a long-established usage and settled understanding.
Lastly, the Department is replacing the term “Chairman” with “Chief Appellate Immigration Judge” and the term “Vice Chairman” with “Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge” in 8 CFR 1003.1. This change is consistent with 8 CFR 1003.1(a)(2) and aligns more closely with the current terminology used by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
This final rule is exempt from the requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effective date because it is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice and relates to agency management and personnel.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or other law.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation), and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501
This rule is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866 and section 5(b) of Executive Order 14192.
Executive Order 14294 requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, does not apply to this rule because it does not impose new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
This is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action pertains to agency organization, management, and personnel and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used in 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Therefore, the reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office specified by 5 U.S.C. 801 are not required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, and by the authority vested in the Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, by the Attorney General Order Number 6260-2025, the Department amends 8 CFR parts 1001, 1003, 1208, and 1240 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Title VII of Pub. L. 110-229.
5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, 1254a, 1255, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2 Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1002; section 203 of Pub. L. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2196-200; sections 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1527-29, 1531-32; section 1505 of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-326 to -328.
The revision reads as follows:
(e) * * *
(1)
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, 1226, 1252, 1282; Title VII of Pub. L. 110-229; Pub. L. 115-218.
8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1182, 1186a, 1186b, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1252 note, 1361, 1362; secs. 202 and 203, Pub. L. 105-100 (111 Stat. 2160, 2193); sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 relating to airspace designations to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. This action also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points incorporated by reference.
This final rule is effective September 15, 2025, through September 15, 2026. The incorporation by reference of FAA Order JO 7400.11K is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2025, through September 15, 2026.
A copy of this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Sarah A. Combs, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, effective September 15, 2024, listed Class A, B, C, D and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points. Due to the length of these descriptions, the FAA requested approval from the Office of the Federal Register to incorporate the material by reference in the Federal Aviation Regulations § 71.1, effective September 15, 2024, through September 15, 2025. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA processed all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order JO 7400.11J in full text as proposed rule documents in the
This document incorporates by reference FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025, in § 71.1. FAA Order JO 7400.11K is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order JO 7400.11K, effective September 15, 2025, through September 15, 2026. During the incorporation by reference period, the
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 4, 2025, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points, was approved for incorporation by reference (IBR) by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 1 CFR part 51. The approval to incorporate FAA Order JO 7400.11K by reference is effective September 15, 2025, through September 15, 2026. During the incorporation by reference period, proposed changes to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as proposed rule documents in the
Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The U.S. Department of Labor (Department) is confirming the effective date of September 2, 2025, for the direct final rule (DFR) that was published in the
The effective date of September 2, 2025, for the DFR published July 1, 2025 (90 FR 27999), is confirmed.
Naomi Barry-Perez, Director, Civil Rights Center, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-4123, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-6500 (this is not a toll-free number). For persons with a hearing or speech disability who need assistance using the telephone system, please dial 711 to access telecommunications relay services. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by visiting
On July 1, 2025, the Department published a DFR removing its regulations at 29 CFR part 37 for a program that is no longer operative. In the DFR, the Department stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, then the rule would become effective on September 2, 2025. Comments from the public were due on July 31, 2025, and were posted publicly in Docket ID DOL-2025-0004 on
The Department received three comments opposed to the removal of the WIA regulations, but the comments did not meet the criteria to be considered significant adverse comments to warrant either withdrawing the rule or issuing a new final rule in response. A significant adverse comment
Therefore, the DFR will become effective on September 2, 2025, as stated in the DFR.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters for a high-speed boat race. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by high-speed boat racing. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on September 6, 2025, through 6:30 p.m. on September 7, 2025. It is subject to enforcement from 8 a.m. through 6:30 p.m. each day.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Ryan McNaughton, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 813-918-7270, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and comment 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 due to the fact that the event sponsor moved the date of the race up by one month. Normally, the event is in October, and the Coast Guard would activate the zone listed in Special Local Regulation in Item No. 6, Table 1 to 33 CFR 100.703, but the event is now in early September, and we did not have enough notice to establish this zone with an NPRM and comment opportunity. The Coast Guard must
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with high-speed boat races starting September 6, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone within the race area. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the event is occurring.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on September 6, 2025 and September 7, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within and around the race course. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the racing event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
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 for the following reasons. The safety zone will only be enforced for approximately 10 hours a day for 2 days. Vessels will be able to transit around the zone and we will broadcast information about the zone via local notice to mariners.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 2 days that will prohibit entry within a designated racecourse area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Designated representatives may control vessel traffic throughout the enforcement area as determined by the prevailing conditions
(3) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in Little Egg Harbor, NJ, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during a barge-based fireworks display. Our regulation for marine events within the USCG East District (formerly the Fifth Coast Guard District) identifies the boundaries of the regulated area. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter, remain in, or transit through the regulated area, and anyone in the vicinity must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The safety zone identified in entry 7 of table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on August 30, 2025.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Dominick Dobridge, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, telephone 206-815-6688, option 3, or email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in entry 7 of table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506 from 9:00 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on August 30, 2025. This enforcement period varies from the July dates provided in the table, but the enforcement periods for each safety zone in paragraph (h) of § 165.506 are subject to change, as noted in 33 CFR 165.506(c).
Activating the enforcement period is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after a barge-based fireworks display approximately 50 yards north of Parker Island, in Little Egg Harbor, NJ. The regulated area includes all waters of Little Egg Harbor within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge position. The approximate position for the barge is latitude 39°34′18.77″ N, longitude 074°14′36.2″ W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.
In addition to this notification in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of South Dakota on July 29, 2022 (South Dakota's 2022 SIP submission), as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to CAA.
This rule is effective on September 29, 2025.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2024-0609. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Joe Stein, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-7078; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of South Dakota to the EPA on July 29, 2022, addressing the requirements of the second implementation period of the RHR. As required by section 169A of the CAA, the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) calls for state and federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas. The rule requires the states, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Forest Service (FS), 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) (
On April 28, 2022, South Dakota submitted a revision to its SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the second implementation period (2018-2028). South Dakota made this 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.
On May 14, 2025, the EPA proposed to approve South Dakota's 2022 SIP submission.
The May 14, 2025 proposed rule provided background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, a summary of South Dakota's regional haze SIP submittals and related EPA actions, and the EPA's rationale for its proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated here. For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, this document, and in the accompanying RTC document, the EPA concludes that South Dakota's 2022 SIP submission meets the requirements of the CAA and RHR.
The public comment period on the proposal closed on June 13, 2025. During the public comment period, we received 11 comments on our proposal; nine sets of comments in support and two sets in opposition. The commenters were: Conservation Groups,
For the reasons stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, in the RTC document, and in this document, we are approving South Dakota's 2022 SIP submission. Specifically, we are approving South Dakota's 2022 SIP submission relating to CAA 169A:
• Calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, progress to date, and uniform rate of progress (40 CFR 51.308(f)(1));
• Long-term strategy (40 CFR 51.308(f)(2));
• Reasonable progress goals (40 CFR 51.308(f)(3));
• Reasonably attributable visibility impairment (40 CFR 51.308(f)(4));
• Progress report requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g));
• Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(6));
• FLM consultation (40 CFR 51.308(i)).
Under the CAA, 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 CAA. 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, 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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 (CRA), 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 October 27, 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)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
This rule is effective September 29, 2025.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0202. All documents in the docket are listed on the
La Kenya Evans-Hopper, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 972-3245; email address:
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On April 7, 2023 (88 FR 20788), the EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received one anonymous comment and one comment from MDAQMD. The full text of these comments is available in the docket for this rulemaking. The anonymous comment was supportive of the rule as a tool to address air pollution, particularly NO
The comment from MDAQMD did not address the EPA's evaluation of the submitted rule, or whether the EPA should approve it into the SIP. The MDAQMD comment requests that the EPA remove the previous versions of Rule 1160, amended October 26, 1994 (61 FR 56470) and amended January 22, 2018 (86 FR 50643), and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1110, adopted November 6, 1981 (47 FR 18822) from the MDAQMD portion of the SIP and replace these rules with the final approval of Rule 1160. Our proposed action stated that the previous version of Rule 1160 will be removed and replaced with the version of Rule 1160 adopted on January 23, 2023. Accordingly, the January 22, 2018 version of the rule will be removed from the SIP with this final action.
The EPA notes that the version of Rule 1160 that was amended on October 26, 1994, has already been removed from the SIP. In our September 10, 2021 (86 FR 50643) limited approval and limited disapproval, we added text at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(207)(i)(D)(5) specifying that this version of Rule 1160 has been removed with replacement. However, this provision contained an incorrect cross reference to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(518)(i)(A)(6) instead of 40 CFR 52.220(c)(518)(i)(A)(7). We are correcting this cross reference in this final rule.
The version of SCAQMD Rule 1110 that is in the MDAQMD portion of the SIP is a 1981 program to demonstrate the effectiveness of NO
After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that the comments do not raise issues that change our assessment regarding the approvability of the January 23, 2023 version of MDAQMD Rule 1160 into the California SIP.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving this rule into the California SIP. The January 23, 2023 version of Rule 1160 will replace the previously approved version of this rule in the SIP. As described in our proposal, this approval resolves all deficiencies forming the basis for our September 10, 2021 (86 FR 50643) limited disapproval of the prior version of Rule 1160. Our April 7, 2023 proposal (88 FR 20788) was accompanied by an interim final determination (88 FR 20776) deferring the imposition of sanctions (pursuant to CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31) stemming from our September 10, 2021 limited disapproval. This final action now permanently terminates all sanctions clocks and federal implementation plan clocks triggered by our September 10, 2021 limited disapproval action. This final action also corrects regulatory text to clarify the applicable requirements for the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Rule 1160, Internal Combustion Engines, amended on January 23, 2023, which regulates NO
Under the CAA, 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 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
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and 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 (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).
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 October 27, 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)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
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:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions and revision read as follows:
(c) * * *
(121) * * *
(i) * * *
(G) Previously approved on May 3, 1984, in paragraph (c)(121)(i)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement for implementation in the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District: Rule 1110.
(207) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(
(518) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(628) The following regulation was submitted electronically on March 3, 2023, by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated February 17, 2023.
(i)
(A) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
(
(
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
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 Texas 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
This rule is effective on September 29, 2025.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0388. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nevine Salem, EPA Region 6 Office,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
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 emissions 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. 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). Additional background for this action is discussed in detail in our June 18, 2025, proposal (90 FR 25924). In that document we proposed to approve the portions of the infrastructure SIP submission adopted by the state of Texas on April 23, 2013, and submitted May 06, 2013, addressing interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour SO
The EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the June 18, 2025, proposed rulemaking. The comment period ended on July 18, 2025. We received two comments on our proposed action, one in support from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and another that was outside the scope of our rulemaking from an anonymous commentor. EPA acknowledges receipt of the comments. See section II of this preamble for a brief discussion of the comments and EPA's response. Full copies of the comments received are included in the docket for this rule making.
The EPA is approving the portions of the Texas' SIP that address two of the interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO
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 SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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 October 27, 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).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Interstate transport of pollution, Sulfur oxide.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Correcting amendments.
DoD is correcting a final rule that published in the
Effective August 28, 2025.
David Johnson, telephone 202-913-5764.
In the final rule published in the
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR part 252 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
As prescribed in 209.170-4, use the following provision:
(a)
(1) Any program that receives funding or support from—
(i) The Chinese International Education Foundation; or
(ii) The Center for Language Exchange Cooperation of the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China; or
(2) Any cultural institute directly or indirectly funded by the government of the People's Republic of China.
(b)
(c)
(1) It is not an institution of higher education that hosts a Confucius Institute; or
(2) The Offeror has obtained a waiver approved by OUSD(R&E).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), open or expand hunting or sport fishing opportunities on 16 National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) stations and 1 National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) station. This includes inaugural hunting opportunities at Southern Maryland Woodlands National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), the newest addition to the NWRS, and the formal opening of hunting opportunities at Grasslands Wildlife Management Area (WMA), as well as inaugural sport fishing at North Attleboro National Fish Hatchery (NFH). These actions open or expand 42 opportunities for hunting and fishing across more than 87,000 acres of Service-managed lands and waters. We also make administrative changes to existing station-specific regulations to improve the clarity and accuracy of regulations, reduce the regulatory burden on the public, and comply with a Presidential mandate for plain-language standards.
This rule is effective August 27, 2025.
This final rule is available on the internet at
Christian Myers, (571) 422-3595. Please see Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2025-0031 on
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended (Administration Act), closes NWRs in all States except Alaska to all uses until opened. The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may open refuge areas to any use, including hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that the use is compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission. The action also must be in accordance with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, and otherwise in the public interest. These requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
We annually review hunting and sport fishing programs to determine whether to include additional stations or whether individual station regulations governing existing programs need modifications. Changing environmental conditions, State and Federal regulations, and other factors affecting fish and wildlife populations and habitat may warrant modifications to station-specific regulations to ensure the continued compatibility of hunting and sport fishing programs and to ensure that these programs will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of station purposes or the Refuge System's mission.
Provisions governing hunting and sport fishing on refuges are in title 50 of the CFR at part 32 (50 CFR part 32), and on hatcheries at part 71 (50 CFR part 71). We regulate hunting and sport fishing to:
• Ensure compatibility with refuge and hatchery purpose(s);
• Properly manage fish and wildlife resource(s);
• Protect other values;
• Ensure visitor safety; and
• Provide opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation.
On many stations where we decide to allow hunting and sport fishing, our general policy of adopting regulations identical to State hunting and sport fishing regulations is adequate to meet these objectives. On other stations, we must supplement State regulations with more-restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our management responsibilities, as outlined under Statutory Authority, below. We issue station-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations when we open national wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing. These regulations may list the wildlife species that you may hunt or fish; seasons; bag or creel (container for carrying fish) limits; methods of hunting or sport fishing; descriptions of areas open to hunting or sport fishing; and other provisions as appropriate.
The Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act; Pub. L. 105-57), governs the administration and public use of refuges, and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (Recreation Act; 16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) governs the administration and public use of refuges and hatcheries.
Amendments enacted by the Improvement Act were built upon the Administration Act in a manner that provides an “organic act” for the Refuge System, similar to organic acts that exist for other public Federal lands. The Improvement Act serves to ensure that we effectively manage the Refuge System as a national network of lands, waters, and interests for the protection and conservation of our Nation's
The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas within the Refuge System and Hatchery System for public recreation as an appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the extent that doing so is practicable and not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which Congress and the Service established the areas. The Recreation Act requires that any recreational use of refuge or hatchery lands be compatible with the primary purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and not inconsistent with other previously authorized operations.
The Administration Act and Recreation Act also authorize the Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts and regulate uses.
We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to opening it to hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop station-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge or hatchery and the Refuge and Hatchery System mission. We ensure initial compliance with the Administration Act and the Recreation Act for hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired land through an interim determination of compatibility made at or near the time of acquisition. These regulations ensure that we make the determinations required by these acts prior to adding refuges or hatcheries to the lists of areas open to hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32 or 71, respectively. We ensure continued compliance by the development of comprehensive conservation plans and step-down management plans, and by annual review of hunting and sport fishing programs and regulations.
On May 15, 2025, we published in the
We will continue to open and expand hunting and sport fishing opportunities across the Refuge System; however, as detailed further in our response to
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Each station manager makes a decision regarding hunting and fishing opportunities only after rigorous examination of the available information, consultation and coordination with States and Tribes, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Hunting of resident wildlife on Service lands generally occurs consistent with State regulations, including seasons and bag limits. Station-specific hunting regulations can be more restrictive (but not more permissive) than State regulations and often are more restrictive to help meet specific refuge objectives. These objectives include resident wildlife population and habitat objectives, minimizing disturbance impacts to wildlife, maintaining high-quality opportunities for hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreation, minimizing conflicts with other public uses and/or refuge management activities, and protecting public safety.
The word “refuge” includes the idea of providing a haven of safety as one of its definitions, and as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the Refuge System. However, again, the Administration Act stipulates that hunting, if found compatible, is a legitimate and priority general public use of a wildlife refuge. Furthermore, we manage refuges to support healthy wildlife populations that in many cases produce harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. As practiced on refuges, hunting and fishing do not pose a negative threat to wildlife populations. It is important to recognize that harvesting certain individuals through hunting does not necessarily lead to a decrease in the overall population, as it can substitute for other types of mortality. In some cases, however, we use hunting as a management tool with the explicit goal of reducing a population; this is often the case with exotic and/or invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability. Therefore, facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of the Service's roles and responsibilities as outlined in the legislation establishing the Refuge System, and the Service will continue to facilitate these opportunities where compatible with the purpose of the specific refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
In response to the NCWRC, we appreciate the support expressed for the opening of a new hunting opportunity at Pocosin Lakes NWR. We value this input and look forward to further coordination, both on this opportunity and future hunting and fishing openings and expansions.
In response to the WDFW, we appreciate the support expressed for waterfowl hunting and archery big game hunting opportunities on Willapa NWR. To date, only archery hunting has been sufficiently evaluated for big game hunts on these lands, so the Service cannot add any firearms as an additional method of take as part of this 2025-2026 annual update. See our responses to
In response to the Catawba Indian Nation comment, we will honor the Tribe's wishes. There are no ground disturbing activities anticipated in connection with this new, limited-entry hunting opportunity that uses a temporarily placed portable stand on Pocosin Lakes NWR. Therefore, no impacts to Native American artifacts or human remains are anticipated. We look forward to further discussion and coordination with the Tribe on future hunting and fishing program updates.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
This rulemaking process is required before hunting and fishing opportunities can be opened or expanded on refuges because they are consumptive recreational uses that inherently have a greater potential for impacts. By completing additional analysis, including NEPA and interagency consultation under section 7 of the ESA, providing opportunity for public input, and following other applicable legal requirements, the Service ensures that any changes to hunting and fishing programs on refuges offer high-quality hunting and fishing opportunities that do not negatively impact refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission. This additional analysis is not required
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
While the Service's 2025-2026 final update is smaller than some previous years, we acknowledge the successes of our recent rulemaking efforts. This year's annual update is larger than both the 2023-2024 and 2024-2024 updates in terms of the number of stations opening or expanding hunting and fishing. In recent years, the Service successfully opened and expanded many hunting and fishing opportunities across numerous stations—most of which were planned and assessed long in advance. The number of opportunities in future annual updates may fluctuate while new opportunities are being identified and evaluated. The Service was also successful in past years at standardizing language and removing unnecessary and redundant provisions in the CFR. This action required revisions to most stations that are open to hunting or fishing.
Ultimately, there is a finite number of compatible hunting and fishing opportunities possible on the NWRS at a given time. Once the Service has maximized access throughout the Refuge System, and as we get closer to that long-term goal, we will mostly be increasing access when new acres are acquired.
In this annual update, specifically, the Service is not authorizing any new opportunities that involve the use of lead ammunition or tackle, and the Service is only introducing one new requirement to use lead-free ammunition or tackle, which applies only to one opportunity on one station. As noted in the environmental assessment (EA), the new bear hunting opportunity on Pocosin Lakes NWR will require that participants use lead-free ammunition. This requirement, however, does not create a regulatory burden or implicate lead-free ammunition cost and availability because the partner organization overseeing the hunting opportunity will provide all needed ammunition.
Additionally, the Service will continue its Lead-Free Hunting Voluntary Incentive Program that was piloted at seven NWRs during the fall 2024 hunting seasons. This program is designed to increase the use of lead-free ammunition on Service-administered lands while preserving hunter choice, and the program is intended to eventually serve as a proven model for similar efforts by State agencies and other land managers. More information is available online at
As the Service continues to consider the best available science and the input of partners and key stakeholders as part of an open and deliberative process for evaluating the future of lead use, we will continue to encourage voluntary use of lead-free ammunition and participation in the Lead-Free Hunting Voluntary Incentive Program, as well as the removal of gut piles.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
The Administration Act also mandates that regulations permitting hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the Refuge System shall be, to the extent practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans (16 U.S.C. 668dd(m)). Therefore, all the opportunities for hunting predators in this rule that are intended to bring greater consistency with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans are part of realizing the Service's mission. In fact, the NCWRC submitted a comment expressing strong support for the proposed bear hunt. See
The current hunt plan for Pocosin Lakes NWR is designed to ensure the black bear population remains a sustainable, renewable wildlife resource. Bear sightings on the refuge are common, and the best available information indicates that the broader coastal North Carolina bear population is healthy, with stable and growing numbers. As of 2020, the statewide bear population was estimated at 17,200 to 19,200 bears. The Service has capped the harvest of bears at five for a given season. The Service has further limited the time and extent of this opportunity by authorizing only one week of hunting within the longer State season, only within designated areas of the refuge and only from an elevated platform as a means to limit the total harvest of bears. These limitations also reduce potential environmental impacts, as discussed further in
The Service coordinates closely with the NCWRC to monitor and consider the status and health of the bear population in terms of demographics in designing hunt plans. NCWRC harvest data indicates that stationary or “still” hunting, which this opportunity is limited to, has lower and less sex-selective (less difference between the harvest rates for female and male bears) harvest rates when compared to other bear hunting methods. While in the past North Carolina hunters selectively targeted male bears, as of 2023, female bears made up 47 percent of the harvest in coastal North Carolina, representing the most balanced harvest reported across the State. Given the short duration of the hunt and the cap of five total permits, the Service does not anticipate population-level impacts to the sex-ratio of bears in coastal North Carolina as a result of this action.
The current hunt plan is also carefully designed to balance the public interest in both quality outdoor recreational hunting and healthy wildlife populations for ecosystem health and other recreational purposes, such as wildlife observation. The Service is aware of several studies showing a correlation between increased hunting and decreased wildlife sightings, which underscores the importance of the limitations included in the design of this hunting opportunity, particularly time and space limitations, to minimize the potential for conflict with other recreational uses of the refuge. These measures are being taken to ensure a quality experience for all visitors to Service-managed lands and waters.
Safety and encouraging the broadest possible participation in hunting opportunities are primary concerns for the Service. Although not required by Tyrrell County where the hunt will occur, for the safety of people and non-target wildlife, the Service has required the use of a raised platform with a minimum elevation of 15 feet for hunters who elect to use a centerfire rifle during the bear hunt. Shooting from an elevated position directs missed shots downward, reducing the likelihood of unintended harm in the relatively flat landscape of coastal North Carolina where ammunition can easily travel long distances. As part of the guided hunt, the State can provide an accessible platform so disabled hunters will be able to participate in the hunt safely, with no additional costs to the hunter or the refuge.
Based on the best available information, there is public support for bear hunting and current State management of bear populations more generally in North Carolina, according to a 2005 survey conducted by the NCWRC. Bear hunting is a traditional activity in the State, practiced by families and groups of friends. A large share of the public believe it is important that access to bear hunting opportunities be maintained. More information on this topic is available as part of the supporting documents for the final rule, see Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2025-0031 on
Finally, both the NEPA process and the rulemaking process provide the opportunity for the public to provide comments and any additional information on impacts of our actions. The information provided in the public comment period did not change our conclusion that a limited bear hunt on one refuge will have only minor impacts on wildlife populations. Additionally, the Service uses an adaptive management approach for its hunting programs, reviewing the station programs annually with relevant information from monitoring and other relevant data, and thus the Pocosin Lakes NWR bear hunting opportunity can be revised in the future based on new information, if necessary.
We did not make any changes to the hunt plan for Pocosin Lakes NWR, or to the rule, as a result of these comments.
The analyses specific to the hunt plan for Pocosin Lakes NWR are available as part of the supporting documents for the final rule. See our responses to
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
For all of the above reasons, Ash Meadows NWR has proposed a rule change that removes the use of boats when hunting waterfowl at Crystal and Peterson Reservoirs. The change brings obsolete regulations up to date to reflect the current appropriate and compatible uses of the refuge, better protects aquatic habitats, and corrects the misperception that Crystal and Peterson Reservoirs have water and/or access to support boating. Restoration of marsh habitat to pre-dam conditions is planned, which will hopefully increase waterfowl use and provide more hunting opportunities in the future.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
As discussed above, under Summary of Comments and Responses, we made no changes to these revisions and additions to the CFR based on comments we received on the May 15, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 20600) and NEPA documents for individual refuges.
We are making several minor administrative changes to the regulations for Savannah NWR that were intended to be but were inadvertently omitted in the proposed regulation promulgation for that individual station. These changes, because they were intended administrative regulatory changes, were described in the CFR Changes Summary Table supporting document provided in the
This rule is effective upon the date of its filing at the Office of the Federal Register (see
This document codifies in the CFR all the Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that we are revising or adding since the last time we amended these regulations (89 FR 88147; November 7, 2024) and that are applicable at Refuge System units and Hatchery System units previously opened to hunting and/or sport fishing. This rule better informs the general public of the regulations at each station, increases understanding and compliance with these regulations, increases efficiency in the enforcement of these regulations. The Service has strived to align with State hunting and fishing regulations; for example, modifications in 2019 removed or simplified thousands of regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on the public (84 FR 47641; September 10, 2019). The Service is committed to continuing to align with State regulations with respect to the use of ammunition and/or fishing tackle in future amendments. In addition to finding these regulations in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71, visitors to our stations may find them reiterated in literature distributed by each station or posted on signs. Table 1, below, summarizes the hunting and sport fishing openings and expansions that are part of this 2025-2026 annual update. Tamarac NWR was incorrectly included in the equivalent table as part of the proposed annual update, which has been corrected.
The changes for the 2025-2026 hunting and fishing seasons noted in the table above are each based on a complete administrative record which, among other detailed documentation, also includes a hunt plan, a compatibility determination (for refuges), and the appropriate NEPA analysis, all of which were the subject of a public review and comment process. The record also includes the appropriate ESA analysis. These documents are available upon request.
Through these openings and expansions, we are opening or expanding hunting or fishing on 87,587 acres within the NWRS and the NFHS.
On March 4, 2025, Executive Order (E.O.) 14229 renamed the Anahuac NWR to honor Jocelyn Nungaray. This rule revises the CFR to reflect the name change.
For health reasons, anglers should review and follow State-issued consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing opportunities on Service-managed waters. You can find information about current fish-consumption advisories on the internet at
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this final rule and additions to the CFR in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
These revisions and additions to the CFR open or expand hunting or fishing on 17 stations. As a result, visitor use for wildlife-dependent recreation on these stations will change. If the stations establishing new programs were a pure addition to the current supply of those activities, it would mean an estimated maximum increase of 189 user days (one person per day participating in a recreational opportunity; see table 2, below). Because the participation trend is flat in these activities, this increase in supply will most likely be offset by other sites losing participants. Therefore, this is likely to be a substitute site for the activity and not necessarily an increase in participation rates for the activity.
To the extent visitors spend time and money in the area of the station that they would not have spent there anyway, they contribute new income to the regional economy and benefit local businesses. Due to the unavailability of site-specific expenditure data, we use the national estimates from the 2022 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation to identify expenditures for food and lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Using the average expenditures for these categories with the maximum expected additional participation of the Refuge System yields approximately $6,000 in recreation-related expenditures (see table 2, above). By having ripple effects throughout the economy, these direct expenditures are only part of the economic impact of these recreational activities. Using a national impact multiplier for hunting activities (2.4) derived from the report “Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation” and for fishing activities (2.3) derived from the report “Sportfishing in America” yields a total maximum economic impact of approximately $14,000 (2024 dollars) (Southwick Associates, Inc., 2024).
Since we know that most of the fishing and hunting occurs within 100 miles of a participant's residence, it is unlikely that most of this spending will be “new” money coming into a local economy; therefore, this spending will be offset with a decrease in some other sector of the local economy. The net gain to the local economies will be no more than $14,000 and likely less. Since
Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait-and-tackle shops, and similar businesses) may be affected by some increased or decreased station visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade establishments in the local communities around stations qualify as small businesses (see table 3, below). We expect that the incremental recreational changes will be scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities in any region or nationally. As noted previously, we expect at most $14,000 to be spent in total in the stations' local economies. The maximum increase will be less than one-tenth of one percent for local retail trade spending (see table 3, below). Table 3 does not include entries for those stations for which we project no changes in recreation opportunities in 2025-2026; see table 2, above.
With the small change in overall spending anticipated from this action, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will have more than a small impact from the spending change near the affected stations. Therefore, we certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
These revisions and additions to the CFR, collectively, are not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Congressional Review Act. We anticipate no significant employment or small business effects. Collectively, the revisions and additions to the CFR:
a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The minimal impact will be scattered across the country and will most likely not be significant in any local area.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. The opportunities will have only a slight effect on the costs of hunting opportunities for Americans. If the substitute sites are farther from the participants' residences, then an increase in travel costs will occur. The Service does not have information to quantify this change in travel cost but assumes that, since most people travel less than 100 miles to hunt, the increased travel cost will be small. We do not expect these hunting and fishing opportunities to affect the supply or demand for hunting or fishing opportunities in the United States, and, therefore, it should not affect prices for hunting or fishing equipment and supplies, or the retailers that sell equipment.
c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The additions and revisions to existing opportunities represent only a small proportion of recreational spending at NWRs. Therefore, the additions and revisions to the CFR will have no measurable economic effect on the wildlife-dependent industry, which has annual sales of equipment and travel expenditures of $72 billion nationwide.
Since the revisions and additions to the CFR will apply to public use of federally owned and managed refuges, it would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The revisions and additions will not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
In accordance with E.O. 12630, the revisions and additions to the CFR will not have significant takings implications. The revisions and additions will affect only visitors to NWRs and NFHs and will describe what they can do while they are on a Service station.
As discussed under
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Department of the Interior has determined that these revisions and additions to the CFR would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the E.O.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking certain actions. Because these revisions and additions would open or expand hunting at 17 NWRS and NFHS stations, the revisions and additions are not collectively a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and we do not expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no statement of energy effects is required.
In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on NWRs and NFHs with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction before we propose the regulations.
This rule contains existing and new collections of information. All information collections require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
• 1018-0140, “Hunting and Sport Fishing Application Forms and Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges, 50 CFR 25.41, 25.43, 25.51, 26.32, 26.33, 27.42, 30.11, 31.15, 32.1 to 32.72” (Expires 09/30/2025, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, an agency may continue to conduct or sponsor this collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB),
• 1018-0102, “National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and Reports, 50 CFR 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, & 36” (Expires 08/31/2025, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, an agency may continue to conduct or sponsor this collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB),
• 1018-0135, “Electronic Federal Duck Stamp Program” (Expires 06/30/2028),
• 1018-0093, “Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports-Management Authority; 50 CFR 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23” (Expires 12/31/2026), and
• 1024-0252, “The Interagency Access Pass and Senior Pass Application Processes” (Expires 10/31/2027).
In accordance with the PRA and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on our proposed revision to OMB Control Number 1018-0140. This input will help us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It will also help the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
The existing and new reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements identified below require approval by OMB:
•
•
•
•
•
• Self-Clearing Daily Check-in Permit. Each user completes this portion of the form (date of visit, name, and telephone numbers) and deposits it in the permit box prior to engaging in any activity on the refuge.
• Self-Clearing Daily Visitor Registration Permit. Each user must complete the front side of the form (date, name, city, State, zip code, and purpose of visit) and carry this portion while on the refuge. At the completion of the visit, each user must complete the reverse side of the form (number of hours on refuge, harvest information (species and number), harvest method, angler information (species and number), and wildlife sighted (
• Self-Clearing Daily Vehicle Permit. The driver and each user traveling in the vehicle must complete this part and display in clear view in the vehicle while on the refuge.
Form 3-2405 collects:
• Information on the visitor (name, address, and contact information). We use this information to identify the visitor or driver/passenger of a vehicle while on the refuge. This is extremely valuable information should visitors become lost or injured. Law enforcement officers can easily check vehicles for these cards in order to determine a starting point for the search or to contact family members in the event of an abandoned vehicle. Having this information readily available is critical in a search and rescue situation.
• Purpose of visit (hunting, sport fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, auto touring, birding,
• Total number of hunt days on the refuge (at the conclusion of their hunting activities). Refuge management will use this information to monitor and evaluate hunt quality and resource impacts.
• Success of harvest by hunters/anglers (number and type of harvest/caught). This information is critical to wildlife management programs on refuges. Each refuge will customize the form by listing game species and incidental species available on the refuge, hunting methods allowed, and data needed for certain species (
• Whether or not visitors observed black bear or hogs, for example. This information will help managers develop annual performance measures for hog removal, and it provides information to help develop resource management planning.
• Photograph of animal harvested (specific refuges only). This requirement documents the sex of animal prior to the hunter being eligible to harvest the opposite sex (where allowed).
• Date of visit and/or area visited.
• Comments. We encourage visitors to comment on their experience.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• State-issued hunter identification (ID)/license number. (
• Species observed—Data will be used by refuge/hatchery staff to document the presence of rare or unusual species.
• Permit number/type—Data will be used to link the harvest report to the issued permit.
• Hunt tag number—Data will be used to link the harvest report to the species-specific hunt tag.
• Number of youth (younger than age 18) in party—Data will be used to better understand volume of youth hunting on a refuge/hatchery. Specific hunter names are not collected, just total number of youths in hunting party.
• Harvested by—Data will be used to determine ratio of adults to youth hunters. Specific hunter names are not collected.
• Species observed—Data will be used by a refuge/hatchery to determine the presence of any unusual species (
1.
• Emergency contact (name and phone number);
• Applicant hunting history, such as:
• Whether applicant has completed a basic hunter education course;
• Whether applicant has purchased a hunting license, and if yes, when;
• Previous hunting experience;
• Previous participation in a mentored hunt program;
• Interest in hunting;
• Family history of hunting;
• Whether applicant owns equipment and if yes, type of equipment; and
• Medical conditions/allergies for program staff to be aware of in the event of an emergency.
The information collected via the application will be used by the Service and partners to determine eligibility for the program the hunter applies to participate in. Upon OMB approval of this revision at the final rule stage, we will discontinue OMB Control No. 1018-0191.
2.
3.
4.
Copies of the draft forms are available to the public by submitting a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer using one of the methods identified above in
On May 15, 2025, we published in the
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this proposed information collection, including:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to the proposed revisions and additions to the information collection are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Send your written comments and suggestions on this information collection by the date indicated in
We comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We analyzed these openings and expansions in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4332(C)) and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 8.
A categorical exclusion from NEPA documentation applies to publication of amendments to station-specific hunting and fishing regulations because they are technical and procedural in nature, and the environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis (516 DM 8). Concerning the actions that are the subject of these additions and revisions, we have complied with NEPA at the project level when developing each hunting or fishing opportunity. This is consistent with the Department of the Interior instructions for compliance with NEPA where actions are covered sufficiently by an earlier environmental document.
Prior to the addition of a refuge or hatchery to the list of areas open to hunting and fishing in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71, we develop hunting and fishing plans for the affected stations. We incorporate these hunting and fishing activities in the appropriate station comprehensive conservation plan and/or other step-down management plans, pursuant to our refuge planning guidance in 602 Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FW) 1, 3, and 4. We prepare these comprehensive conservation plans and step-down plans in compliance with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA and the Department of Interior's NEPA regulations at 43 CFR part 46. We invite the affected public to participate in the review, development, and implementation of these plans. Copies of all plans and NEPA compliance are available upon request.
More information about the Service's hunting and fishing programs is available online, including an interactive map of hunting and fishing opportunities. Hunting information is available at
Individual refuge and hatchery offices also have more detailed information about public use programs and conditions that apply to their specific programs and maps of their respective areas. To find contact information for the appropriate Service office, you may locate the office on an interactive map at
Christian Myers, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning, National Wildlife Refuge System, is the primary author of this document.
The regulatory amendments set forth below are presented alongside existing station-specific regulations that have not been amended. For a table that provides additional clarity on which specific regulatory provisions have been amended, please see Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2025-0031 on
Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
Fish, Fishing, Hunting, Wildlife.
For the reasons described in the preamble, we amend title 50, chapter I, subchapters C and E of the CFR as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 715i; Pub. L. 115-20, 131 Stat. 86.
(e)
(2) Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
(3) Colusa National Wildlife Refuge.
(4) Delevan National Wildlife Refuge.
(5) Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
(6) Grasslands Wildlife Management Area.
(7) Havasu National Wildlife Refuge.
(8) Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
(9) Imperial National Wildlife Refuge.
(10) Kern National Wildlife Refuge.
(11) Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge.
(12) Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge.
(13) Merced National Wildlife Refuge.
(14) Modoc National Wildlife Refuge.
(15) Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge.
(16) Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge.
(17) Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.
(18) San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
(19) San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
(20) San Luis National Wildlife Refuge.
(21) San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
(22) Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge.
(23) Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
(24) Sutter National Wildlife Refuge.
(25) Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
(t)
(2) Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge.
(3) Patuxent Research Refuge.
(4) Southern Maryland Woodlands National Wildlife Refuge.
(qq)
(2) Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge.
(3) Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge.
(4) Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge.
(5) Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
(6) Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
(7) Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge.
(8) Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge.
(9) Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge.
(10) Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
(11) McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge.
(12) Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge.
(13) Neches River National Wildlife Refuge.
(14) San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge.
(15) Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge.
(16) Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge.
(d)
(i) You must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt permit (signed brochure) when hunting.
(ii) All youth hunters (ages 10 through 15) must remain within sight and normal voice contact of a properly licensed hunting adult age 21 or older. Youth hunters must possess and carry verification of passing a State-approved hunter education course. One adult may supervise no more than two youth hunters.
(iii) All waterfowl hunting opportunities are spaced-blind and assigned by lottery. Hunters wishing to participate in our waterfowl hunt must submit a Waterfowl Lottery Application (FWS Form 3-2439, Hunt Application—National Wildlife Refuge System).
(iv) Hunters must remove all stands/blinds and other personal property at the end of each day's hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(v) We allow access to the refuge for hunting from 1
(vi) We prohibit organized drives. We define a “drive” as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise frighten or cause game to move in the direction of any person(s) who is part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the game.
(vii) We prohibit hunting or observing from an elevated stand without use of a full body harness.
(2)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (ii) and (v) through (vii) of this section apply.
(ii) We allow only shotguns and State-designated archery equipment as means of take for upland game hunting.
(3)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (v) through (vii) of this section apply.
(ii) We allow youth gun hunting opportunities that are spaced-blind and assigned by lottery. Hunters wishing to participate in our youth gun hunt must submit a Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2439, Hunt Application—National Wildlife Refuge System).
(iii) All youth hunters must remain within sight and normal voice contact of a properly hunting-licensed adult age 21 or older. Youth hunters must possess and carry verification of passing a State-approved hunter education course. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.
(iv) All big game hunting opportunities, except for youth gun, are archery-only.
(v) We close those portions of the refuge between Bustahatchee and Rood Creeks to archery hunting until November 1.
(4)
(i) We allow shoreline access for fishing from 1 hour before legal sunrise to 1 hour after legal sunset.
(ii) We prohibit taking frog or turtle on all refuge lands and waters (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
(iii) We adopt reciprocal license agreements between Alabama and Georgia for fishing in Lake Eufaula. Anglers fishing in waters not directly connected to Lake Eufaula must be properly licensed for the State in which they are fishing.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(f)
(i) You may not possess more than 25 shot shells while in the field once you have left your assigned parking lot. On the Freitas Units, you may not possess more than 25 shot shells once you are in the field.
(ii) You must return your permits (State-issued) to the check stations immediately upon completion of your hunt and prior to using any tour routes or leaving the refuge vicinity.
(iii) We restrict hunters in the spaced blind area to their assigned blind except when they are placing decoys, traveling to and from the parking area, retrieving downed birds, or pursuing crippled birds.
(iv) We restrict hunters in the spaced zone area of the East Bear Creek Unit and West Bear Creek Unit to their assigned zone except when they are traveling to and from the parking area, retrieving downed birds, or pursuing crippled birds.
(v) Access to the Freitas Unit free-roam hunting area is by boat only. We prohibit air-thrust and inboard water-thrust boats.
(vi) We require State-issued Type A area permits for accessing the Freitas Unit on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
(2)
(3)-(4) [Reserved]
(r)
(2)
(i) Archery hunting of quail is limited to September 1 to the closing date established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
(ii) Hunting of brush rabbit and cottontail rabbit is limited to September 1 to the closing date established by the CDFW.
(iii) Hunting of Eurasian collared-dove and jackrabbit is limited to September 1 to the last day of February.
(iv) We allow shotguns and archery only. Falconry is prohibited.
(v) We allow the use of dogs when hunting upland game.
(3)
(4) [Reserved]
(t)
(i) You may not possess more than 25 shot shells while in the field once you
(ii) You must return your permits (State-issued) to the check stations immediately upon completion of your hunt and prior to using any tour routes or leaving the refuge vicinity.
(iii) We restrict hunters in the spaced blind area to their assigned blind except when they are placing decoys, traveling to and from the parking area, retrieving downed birds, or pursuing crippled birds.
(iv) We restrict hunters in the spaced zone area of the East Bear Creek Unit and West Bear Creek Unit to their assigned zone except when they are traveling to and from the parking area, retrieving downed birds, or pursuing crippled birds.
(v) Access to the Freitas Unit free-roam hunting area is by boat only. We prohibit air-thrust and inboard water-thrust boats.
(vi) We require State-issued Type A area permits for accessing the Freitas Unit on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
(vii) We prohibit the use of motorized boats and other flotation devices in the free-roam units with the exception of the Freitas Unit.
(viii) We prohibit vehicle trailers of any type or size to be in the refuge hunt areas at any time or to be left unattended at any location on the refuge.
(ix) We allow the use of dogs when hunting.
(2)
(3) [Reserved]
(4)
(i) We only allow fishing during normal refuge visitation hours in designated areas as posted.
(ii) We only allow the use of pole and line or rod and reel to take fish, and anglers must attend their equipment at all times.
(b)
(3)
(i) We require a refuge hunt permit (electronic form) for all hunters age 16 and older.
(ii) Each hunter may place one stand on the refuge no earlier than one month prior to the opening day of each hunt but must remove the stand by the end of each hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(iii) Only permitted hunters may camp at the designated camping area during refuge hunts.
(iv) For hunting, we allow only bows as governed by State regulations.
(v) Hunters may take five deer (no more than two antlered).
(vi) We allow mooring of boats to the government dock only for loading and unloading purposes.
(4)
(i) We allow saltwater fishing year-round in the estuarine waters adjacent to the refuge.
(ii) We allow bank/beach saltwater fishing into estuarine waters only from legal sunrise to legal sunset except during managed hunts.
(e)
(3)
(i) We require a refuge hunt permit (electronic form) for all hunters age 16 and older.
(ii) Each hunter may place one stand on the refuge during the week preceding each hunt but must remove the stand by the end of each hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(iii) We prohibit hunting within 100 yards (91 meters) of Harris Neck Road, the refuge entrance drive, Visitor Contact Station/Office, Barbour River Landing, Barbour River Road, or Gould's Cemetery.
(iv) Hunters may take five deer (no more than two antlered).
(v) During the gun hunt, we allow only shotguns (20 gauge or larger), muzzleloaders, bows, air rifles (.30 caliber or larger), and air bows, as governed by State regulations. We prohibit the use of centerfire rifles and prohibit the use of buckshot.
(vi) We allow the incidental take of armadillo, feral hog, and coyote during any refuge hunt with the weapons legal for that hunt, subject to applicable State seasons and regulations. There is no bag limit for these species.
(4)
(i) We allow saltwater fishing year-round in the estuarine waters adjacent to the refuge.
(ii) We allow bank fishing into estuarine waters only from legal sunrise to legal sunset except during managed hunts.
(iii) We prohibit freshwater fishing.
(h)
(i) We require a refuge hunt permit (electronic form) for all hunters age 16 and older.
(ii) You may take feral hog and coyote during all refuge hunts with weapons authorized and legal for those hunts.
(iii) We allow the incidental take of armadillo, beaver, opossum, and raccoon during all refuge hunts with firearms and other equipment authorized for use on refuge lands in Georgia only.
(iv) We allow the use of dogs for retrieving migratory birds.
(2)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (iii), and (iv) of this section apply.
(ii) You may not hunt on or within 100 yards (90 meters) of public roads, refuge facilities, roads and trails, and railroad rights-of-way, or in closed areas.
(3)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) and (h)(2)(ii) of this section apply.
(ii) You may only use bows, as governed by State regulations, for deer, feral hog, and coyote hunting during the archery hunt for these species.
(iii) You may only use shotguns (20 gauge or larger), centerfire rifles, centerfire pistols, muzzleloaders, and bows, as governed by State regulations, for deer, feral hog, and coyote hunting during the firearm hunts for these species.
(iv) Hunters may take five deer (no more than two antlered).
(v) We allow only shotguns with approved nontoxic #2 shot or smaller, and bows, as governed by State regulations, for turkey hunting.
(vi) We prohibit the use of buckshot
(vii) We prohibit catch-and-release of alligators.
(4)
(i) Anglers may fish in refuge impoundments and canals from March 1 through November 30 annually.
(ii) Anglers may fish in Kingfisher Pond and all tidal creeks year-round.
(iii) We allow fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
(iv) Anglers may bank fish year-round throughout the refuge, unless otherwise posted.
(v) Anglers may only use nonmotorized boats and boats with electric motors within impounded waters.
(i)
(3)
(i) We require a refuge hunt permit (electronic form) for all hunters age 16 and older.
(ii) Hunters may take five deer (no more than two antlered).
(iii) We prohibit the use of buckshot.
(iv) We allow mooring of boats to the government dock only for loading or unloading purposes.
(v) We allow only permitted hunters to camp at the designated camping area while participating in refuge hunts.
(vi) Each hunter may place one stand on the refuge no earlier than one month prior to the opening day of each hunt, but you must remove all stands by the end of each hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(4)
(i) We allow saltwater fishing year-round in the estuarine waters adjacent to the refuge.
(ii) We allow bank/beach fishing into estuarine waters only from legal sunrise to legal sunset except during managed hunts.
(iii) We prohibit freshwater fishing.
(l)
(i) You must carry a signed refuge hunt permit (signed public use regulations brochure) and must carry and fill out daily a Visitor Check-In Permit and Report (FWS Form 3-2405).
(ii) We allow waterfowl hunting until 12 p.m. (noon) during the State season.
(iii) Hunters may enter the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m. and must exit no later than 1:30 p.m.
(iv) We prohibit hunting within 100 feet (30 meters (m)) of the maintained rights-of-way of roads. We prohibit hunting within 50 feet (15 m) or trespassing on aboveground oil, gas, or electrical transmission facilities.
(v) Hunters must remove boats, blinds, and decoys from the refuge at the end of each day's hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(vi) When hunting migratory game birds, you may only use dogs to locate, point, and retrieve game.
(2)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (iv) of this section apply.
(ii) You may enter the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m. and must exit no later than 2 hours after legal shooting hours.
(iii) When hunting upland game, you may only use dogs to locate, point, and retrieve game.
(3)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (iv) and (l)(2)(ii) of this section apply.
(ii) You must check all deer taken during general gun deer hunts at a refuge check station on the same day taken.
(iii) We prohibit hunters from placing or hunting from stands on pine trees with white-painted bands or rings.
(4)
(t)
(i) All hunters and anglers age 16 and older must purchase an Annual Public Use Permit (FWS Form 3-2439). This permit allows individuals to participate in open (non-quota) hunting and fishing seasons.
(ii) All hunters and anglers must obtain a Self-Clearing Permit (FWS Form 3-2405), available at refuge entry points and at the Visitor Center, or utilize electronic check in and check out, and complete the self-clearing process when exiting the refuge at the end of each day.
(iii) We allow hunting of duck, goose, rail, gallinule, coot, and snipe on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays until 2 p.m. during the State season. We prohibit migratory bird hunting during refuge gun hunts for deer.
(iv) We allow refuge hunters to enter the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m., and they must leave no later than 2 hours after legal sunset unless they are participating in the refuge nighttime raccoon hunt or tracking wounded deer.
(v) We allow all-terrain vehicle (ATV) travel on designated trails for access typically from October 1 to the last day of the refuge squirrel season.
(vi) We prohibit field dressing of game within 150 feet (45 meters) of parking areas, maintained roads, and trails.
(vii) An adult age 18 or older must supervise youth hunters age 17 and younger during all hunts. One adult may supervise two youths during small game and migratory bird hunts but may supervise only one youth during big game hunts. Youth must remain within normal voice contact of the adult who is supervising them.
(viii) We allow the incidental take of coyote, beaver, raccoon, opossum, feral hog, armadillo, and nutria during authorized hunts with firearms and archery equipment legal for use during the hunt.
(2)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (t)(1)(i), (ii), and (iv) through (viii) of this section apply.
(ii) A nighttime raccoon hunt will be conducted during December, January, and/or February, usually in conjunction with the adjacent State Wildlife Management Area (WMA) raccoon hunting season.
(iii) We allow the use of dogs when squirrel and rabbit hunting subject to the following conditions:
(A) We allow hunting without dogs from the beginning of the State season to December 31.
(B) From the beginning of the State season to December 31, we do not require hunters to wear hunter orange.
(C) We allow squirrel and rabbit hunting with or without dogs from January 1 to the last day of February.
(D) From January 1 to the last day of February, squirrel and rabbit hunters are required to wear a minimum solid hunter orange cap.
(E) We allow no more than three dogs per hunting party.
(iv) We close squirrel and rabbit hunting during the following gun hunts for deer: Refuge-wide youth hunt, primitive firearms hunt, and modern firearms hunts.
(3)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (t)(1)(i), (ii), and (iv) through (viii) of this section apply.
(ii) We require a valid Quota Firearm Permit (FWS Form 3-2439) to hunt during a Deer Quota Firearm Hunt. You must complete and submit an application for all Deer Quota Hunts, and hunters will be notified of their drawing status. If selected, hunters are required to purchase the Annual Public Use Permit (FWS Form 3-2439) to claim their Quota Firearm Permit for the selected hunt. Hunters must carry a signed paper copy or electronic version of the permit with them on their person while hunting.
(iii) Deer archery season will begin the first Saturday in November and will conclude on January 31, except for during the youth gun hunt and modern firearms hunts, when archery is prohibited.
(iv) The deer primitive firearms season will occur between November 1 and January 31. We allow all legal primitive firearms as governed by State regulations.
(v) During the deer primitive firearms season, hunters may fit any legal primitive firearms with magnified scopes.
(vi) We allow hunters using primitive weapons to hunt reforested areas.
(vii) We prohibit youth hunters from using modern firearms during the primitive weapon hunt.
(viii) We prohibit hunting and/or shooting into or across any reforested area during the gun hunts for deer.
(ix) For the guided quota youth hunts, we consider youth to be ages 8 through 15.
(x) We will conduct a refuge-wide youth deer hunt that will coincide with the State youth hunt weekend.
(xi) Hunters may take only one deer (one buck or one doe) per day during refuge deer hunts, except that during guided youth and wheelchair-bound hunts, the limit will be one antlerless and one antlered deer per day.
(xii) We allow turkey hunting in designated areas during the State turkey hunt season not to exceed 16 days.
(xiii) We allow a youth turkey hunt weekend in conjunction with the State youth turkey hunt weekend.
(xiv) We allow muzzleloader hunters to discharge their primitive firearms at the end of each hunt safely into the ground at least 150 feet (45 meters (m)) from any designated public road, maintained road, trail, fire break, dwelling, or aboveground oil and gas production facility. We define a “maintained road or trail” as one that has been mowed, disked, or plowed, or one that is free of trees.
(xv) We prohibit deer hunters leaving deer stands unattended before the opening day of the refuge archery season. Hunters must remove stands from the refuge by the end of the last day of the refuge archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter). Hunters must remove portable stands from trees at the end of each day's hunt and place freestanding stands in a nonhunting position when unattended. Hunters must clearly mark stands left unattended on the refuge with the hunter's last name, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries license number, and I-Sportsman Permit Number.
(xvi) We allow hunting with slugs, rifle, or pistol ammunition larger than .22 caliber rimfire only during the quota hunts for deer. We prohibit use of buckshot when hunting.
(4)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (t)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section apply.
(ii) We allow anglers to enter the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m., and they must depart no later than 2 hours after legal sunset.
(iii) We prohibit the taking of turtle (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
(iv) We prohibit fish cleaning within 150 feet (45 m) of parking areas, maintained roads, and trails.
(u)
(i) You must carry a signed refuge public use brochure and must carry and fill out daily a Visitor Check-In Permit and Report (FWS Form 3-2405).
(ii) Hunters may only hunt during designated refuge seasons as listed in the signed refuge public use brochure.
(iii) We allow waterfowl hunting until 12 p.m. (noon) during the State season. Waterfowl hunters must exit the refuge no later than 1:30 p.m.
(iv) Hunters may enter the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m.
(v) We prohibit hunting within 100 feet (30 meters (m)) of the maintained rights-of-way of roads and from or across all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails. We prohibit hunting within 50 feet (15 m) of, or trespassing on, aboveground oil, gas, or electrical transmission facilities.
(vi) When hunting migratory game birds, you may only use dogs to locate, point, and retrieve.
(vii) We allow ATVs only on trails designated for their use and marked by signs (see § 27.31 of this chapter). ATV trails are closed March 1 through August 31.
(viii) We allow the incidental take of coyote, beaver, and feral hog during any refuge hunt with the weapons legal for that hunt, subject to applicable State seasons and regulations.
(2)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (u)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vii), and (viii) of this section apply.
(ii) You must exit no later than 2 hours after legal shooting hours, unless participating in authorized hunting after legal sunset.
(iii) We allow the nighttime hunting of raccoon and opossum from December 1 to January 31 with the aid of dogs. We allow hunting of raccoon and opossum during the daylight hours of rabbit and squirrel season.
(3)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (u)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vii), and (viii), and (u)(2)(ii) of this section apply.
(ii) Deer hunters must wear hunter orange as governed by State deer hunting regulations in wildlife management areas.
(iii) We prohibit hunters from placing stands or hunting from stands on pine trees with white-painted bands and/or rings.
(4)
(i) We prohibit leaving boats and other personal property on the refuge overnight (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(ii) You must tend trotlines daily. You must attach ends of trotlines by a length of cotton line that extends into the water.
(iii) We prohibit the taking of turtle (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
(c)
(i) We allow the use of dogs consistent with State regulations.
(ii) We allow hunters to enter the refuge one (1) hour before legal shooting hours, and they must exit the refuge by one (1) hour past legal shooting hours.
(iii) We only allow portable or temporary blinds and decoys that must be removed from the refuge following each day's hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(iv) Hunters must retrieve all species harvested on the refuge.
(2)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii) (except for hunters pursuing raccoon and coyote at night), (iii), and (iv) of this section apply.
(ii) We allow hunting for eastern coyote, red squirrel, and woodchuck only from October 1 to March 31.
(3)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section apply.
(ii) We allow stands, blinds, and ladders to be set up on the opening day of the archery deer season. Stands, blinds and ladders may not be set up within 50 yards of a road open to motorized vehicles. Hunters must clearly label tree stands, blinds, or ladders left on the refuge overnight with their State hunting license number and last name. Hunters must remove stands, blinds, and ladders from the refuge by the last day of the muzzleloader deer season (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(iii) You may hunt black bear, eastern coyote, and white-tailed deer during the State archery and firearms deer seasons on the Baring Division east of State Route 191.
(iv) We prohibit use of firearms to hunt bear during the archery deer season on the Baring Division east of Route 191. We prohibit the use of firearms, other than a muzzleloader, to hunt coyote during the deer muzzleloader season on the Baring Division east of Route 191.
(v) You may hunt turkey during the State fall turkey season using archery equipment only.
(4)
(i) We only allow fishing from
(ii) We prohibit trapping fish for use as bait.
(d)
(3)
(i) We allow only the use of archery equipment, as defined by the State, in designated areas open to hunting.
(ii) We prohibit organized deer drives. We define a “deer drive” as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise frighten or cause deer to move in the direction of any person(s) who is part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the deer.
(4) [Reserved]
(f)
(i) You must possess and carry a refuge check-in card (FWS Form 3-2405, Self-Clearing Check-in Permit).
(ii) We allow waterfowl hunting on Saturdays, Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays during the regular goose season after September 30 and during the State youth waterfowl season.
(iii) We allow hunter access to the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time to 2 hours after legal shooting time.
(iv) You may possess no more than 25 shotgun shells while hunting in the field.
(v) We allow the use of dogs while hunting, provided the dog is under the immediate control of the hunter at all times.
(vi) We allow the take of feral hog incidental to other lawful hunting using legal methods of take.
(2)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (vi) of this section apply, except we allow hunter access to the refuge for furbearer hunting from
(ii) You may only hunt turkey during the spring season.
(iii) We allow dogs for hunting. Raccoon hunting dogs must wear global positioning system (GPS) or radio collars.
(3)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (vi) of this section apply.
(ii) You must possess and carry a refuge permit (State-issued permit).
(4)
(i) We allow fishing by boat in navigable waterways but not within any managed refuge units.
(ii) We allow bank fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset only at designated sites along the Tittabawassee and Cass Rivers.
(c)
(2)
(3)
(i) We allow hunters to leave portable tree stands, portable blinds, and freestanding elevated platforms on the refuge from August 15 through December 15.
(ii) You must visibly mark portable tree stands, portable blinds, and freestanding elevated platforms with your automated licensing system (ALS) number.
(4) [Reserved]
(d)
(2)
(i) You must possess and carry a refuge Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G) to hunt fox and coyote.
(ii) Fox and coyote hunters may only use centerfire rifles, rimfire rifles, or shotguns with approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)).
(3)-(4) [Reserved]
(h)
(2)
(3)
(4) [Reserved]
(j)
(2)
(3)
(i) We allow hunters to leave portable tree stands, portable blinds, and freestanding elevated platforms on the refuge from August 15 through December 15.
(ii) You must visibly mark portable tree stands, portable blinds, and freestanding elevated platforms with your automated licensing system (ALS) number.
(4) [Reserved]
(l)
(2)
(3)
(4) [Reserved]
(a)
(2)
(3)-(4) [Reserved]
(e)
(i) We allow the use of dogs consistent with State regulations.
(ii) For the regular waterfowl season and October through January season for Canada goose:
(A) We require daily electronic refuge permits and reservations. We require you to check in, check out, and report your harvest each hunt day using the designated online platform.
(B) We allow hunting only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays during the established refuge season set within the State western zone season, and during New York State's established special hunts, which can occur any day of the week as set by the State. Veteran and active military hunters may be accompanied by a non-hunting companion. Youth hunters must be accompanied by a qualified guide (qualified guides must be of legal hunting age and possess a valid hunting license, Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (as known as a “Federal Duck Stamp”), Harvest Information Program (HIP) number, and proof of successful completion of a waterfowl identification course as described in paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(F) of this section).
(C) Hunters may not enter the refuge earlier than 5 a.m. and must exit the hunt area by 1 p.m.
(D) We allow motorless boats to hunt waterfowl. We limit hunters to one boat per reservation and one motor vehicle in the hunt area per reservation. Participants in the New York State youth waterfowl hunt may request exceptions to this provision at the discretion of refuge staff.
(E) We prohibit shooting from within 500 feet (152 meters) of the Tschache Pool observation tower.
(F) We require proof of successful completion of the New York State waterfowl identification course, the Montezuma nonresident waterfowl identification course, or a suitable nonresident State waterfowl identification course. All hunters must show proof of successful course completion each time they hunt.
(G) You may hunt gallinule and Canada goose on refuge areas designated for the regular waterfowl season only during the regular waterfowl season.
(iii) For Canada goose in September and snow goose hunting:
(A) We allow hunting of Canada goose during the New York State September season and hunting of snow goose during portions of the New York State snow goose season and portions of the period covered by the Light Goose Conservation Order.
(B) You must possess a valid daily hunt permit (FWS Form 3-2542). We require you to complete and return the daily hunt permit card by the end of the hunt day.
(C) For snow goose hunting, hunters may enter the refuge/Hunter Check Station area no earlier than 4 hours before legal sunrise. For Canada goose hunting, hunters may enter the refuge/Hunter Check Station area no earlier than 2 hours before legal sunrise.
(2)
(i) The condition set forth at paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section applies.
(ii) You must possess a valid daily hunt permit (FWS Form 3-2542) and are required to complete and return the daily hunt permit card by the end of each hunt day.
(iii) We allow upland game hunters to access the refuge from 2 hours before legal sunrise until 2 hours after legal sunset.
(iv) We require the use of approved non-lead shot for upland game hunting (see § 32.2(k)).
(3)
(i) The condition set forth at paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section applies.
(ii) You must possess a valid daily hunt permit (FWS Form 3-2542). We require you to complete and return the daily hunt permit card by the end of the hunt day.
(iii) We allow white-tailed deer and turkey hunters to access the refuge from 2 hours before legal sunrise until 2 hours after legal sunset.
(iv) We allow youth and special big game hunts during New York State's established youth and special big game hunts each year.
(4)
(i)
(i) We require all hunters and anglers to possess and carry a signed, self-service refuge hunting/fishing permit (signed brochure) while hunting and fishing on the refuge. We require all hunters age 16 and older to purchase and carry a special refuge recreational activity permit (name/address/phone number).
(ii) We allow hunters to enter and remain in hunting areas from 2 hours before legal sunrise until 2 hours after legal sunset when we allow hunting in those areas.
(iii) We allow the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) only on designated ATV roads (see § 27.31 of this chapter) and only to transport hunters and their equipment to hunt and scout. We allow hunting from ATVs while on these designated ATV roads when they are stationary and the engine is turned off. We allow ATV use only on the ATV roads at the following times:
(A) When we open the ATV road and surrounding area to hunting;
(B) One week prior to the ATV road and surrounding area opening to hunting; and
(C) On Sundays, when we open the ATV road and surrounding area for hunting the following Monday.
(iv) We allow the use of only biodegradable-type flagging.
(v) We allow the use of only portable blinds and temporary blinds constructed of natural materials. You must remove portable blinds at the end of each day (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(vi) We allow the use of dogs to point and retrieve migratory game birds.
(2)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section apply.
(ii) We only allow the taking of beaver and nutria with firearms and only during those times when the area is open to hunting of other game animals with firearms.
(iii) We prohibit the hunting of raccoon and opossum during, 5 days before, and 5 days after the State bear seasons. Outside of these periods, we allow the hunting of raccoon and opossum at night but only while possessing a General Special Use Application and Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G).
(iv) We prohibit the use of rifles, other than .22-caliber rimfire rifles, for hunting, and we prohibit the use of pistols for hunting.
(v) We allow the use of dogs for pointing and retrieving upland game and for chasing rabbit (but not fox). We prohibit possession of buckshot or slugs while hunting with dogs.
(3)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section apply.
(ii) You may hunt turkey only if you carry a valid permit (General Activities Special Use Permit Application, FWS Form 3-1383-G). These permits are valid only for the dates and areas shown on the permit. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) while hunting turkeys west of Evans Road and on the Pungo Unit.
(iii) We only allow the take of white-tailed deer with the use of archery equipment, black powder firearms, and shotguns as authorized by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
(iv) For the special opportunity black bear hunt:
(A) We allow the use of centerfire rifle only;
(B) Hunters must shoot from a raised position (portable stand) of 15 feet or higher; and
(C) Additional requirements may apply for hunters selected to participate in the special opportunity hunt.
(v) We allow deer hunting on the Pungo Unit only through the end of October each season, except that we allow deer hunting with archery equipment on the Pungo Unit through the end of November.
(vi) We allow hunters to take feral hog in any area that is open to hunting deer using only those weapons authorized for taking deer. On the Frying Pan tracts, we also allow hunters to take feral hog, using only those weapons authorized for taking deer, whenever we open those tracts to hunting any game species with firearms.
(vii) We allow the use of only portable deer stands (tree climbers, ladders, tripods, etc.). We require that you
(4)
(i) We allow fishing in Pungo Lake and New Lake only from March 1 through October 31, except that we close Pungo Lake and the entire Pungo Unit to fishing during the limited big game hunts.
(ii) We allow fishing only from
(d)
(3)
(i) We require a refuge hunt permit (electronic form) for all hunters age 16 and older.
(ii) Each hunter may place one stand on the refuge during the week preceding the hunt. You must remove your stand at the end of the hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(iii) We allow only shotguns (20 gauge or larger), muzzleloaders, and bows as governed by State regulations.
(iv) We prohibit the use of buckshot.
(v) We prohibit hunting closer than 100 yards (90 meters (m)) to U.S. Highway 278 or the check station area, or closer than 200 yards (180 m) to the residence area.
(vi) Hunters may take five deer (no more than two antlered).
(4)
(i) We allow saltwater fishing year-round in the estuarine waters adjacent to the refuge.
(ii) We prohibit freshwater fishing.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(e)
(i) We require hunters to obtain a refuge permit (FWS Form 3-2439).
(ii) All hunters must check in and out at refuge headquarters.
(iii) Bag limits will be determined annually for each species but will never exceed the limits set by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Bag limits and other hunting information, such as number of hunt days and permits issued, will be posted prior to the hunt.
(iv) We prohibit the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs).
(v) 1 hour after legal sunset, hunters may only be present on the refuge in designated camping areas.
(vi) We allow the use of dogs for retrieving game.
(vii) Hunters must attend a briefing prior to all hunts.
(viii) We prohibit falconry.
(ix) All bird harvests must be checked at the designated check points.
(x) Hunting hours will be from
(2)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section apply.
(ii) Hunting hours will be from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
(iii) We allow only shotguns for pheasant and quail hunting.
(3)
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraph (f)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section apply.
(ii) Hunters may enter the hunting area and begin hunting 1 hour before legal sunrise and must exit the hunting area by 1 hour after legal sunset.
(iii) We prohibit the use of tree stands and any devices, such as nails, tacks, or scaffolding, used to climb trees. We also prohibit the use of elevated blinds, including tripod blinds.
(iv) We prohibit the use of decoys.
(v) We only allow archery equipment or centerfire rifles (.243/6mm or larger) as methods of take.
(4) [Reserved]
(h)
(i) You must carry a current signed refuge hunting permit (signed refuge hunt brochure) while waterfowl hunting on all refuge hunt units.
(ii) Season dates for waterfowl will be concurrent with the State, except as specified in the refuge hunt brochure.
(iii) Hunters age 17 and younger must be under the direct supervision of an adult age 18 or older.
(iv) For waterfowl hunting, you may enter the refuge hunt units no earlier than 4 a.m. Hunting starts at the designated legal shooting time and ends at 12 p.m. (noon). You must leave refuge hunt units by 12:30 p.m. For dove hunting, you may enter the refuge 1 hour before legal sunrise and must leave the refuge by
(v) For waterfowl hunting, we allow hunting in portions of the East Unit on Saturdays, Sundays, and Tuesdays during the regular waterfowl seasons.
(vi) Hunters must check in and out through the check station (FWS Form 3-2405) when accessing the East Unit by vehicle.
(vii) We require hunters to remain in an assigned area for that day's hunt.
(viii) We allow hunters to access designated areas of the East Unit by boat from Jackson Ditch, East Bay Bayou, or Onion Bayou.
(ix) We allow hunting on the East Unit as governed by the State light goose conservation order. Hunt areas are by permit on a first-come, first-served basis the morning of the hunt. We allow a maximum of six persons per field. Individuals in each group must set up and stay in their permitted area and stay within 50 feet (15 meters (m)) of each other unless retrieving goose.
(x) Hunters must set up within 50 yards (45 m) of the post marker and must stay within 50 feet (15 m) of each other unless retrieving waterfowl. We allow a minimum of two, and a maximum of six, persons per permit.
(xi) We allow hunting in portions of the Middleton Tract daily during the September teal season and on Saturdays, Sundays, and Wednesdays of the regular waterfowl season.
(xii) We restrict motorized boats in inland waters of the Middleton Tract to motors of 25 horsepower or less or
(xiii) You may access hunt areas by foot, nonmotorized watercraft, outboard motorboat, or airboat. Airboats may not exceed 10 horsepower with direct drive with a propeller length of 48 inches (120 centimeters) or less.
(xiv) On inland waters of refuge hunt areas open to motorized boats, we restrict the operation of motorized boats to lakes, ponds, ditches, and other waterways when hunting. We prohibit the operation of motorized boats on or through emergent wetland vegetation.
(xv) On inland waters of the refuge hunt areas open to motorized boats, we restrict the use of boats powered by air-cooled or radiator-cooled engines to those powered by a single engine of 25 horsepower or less and utilizing a propeller 9 inches (22.5 centimeters) in diameter or less during the hunting season.
(xvi) We allow portable blinds or temporary natural vegetation blinds. You must remove all blinds, decoys, boats, spent shells, marsh chairs, and other equipment from the refuge at the end of each day's hunt (see §§ 27.93 and 27.94 of this chapter).
(xvii) We require a minimum distance between hunt parties of 200 yards (180 m).
(xviii) We allow the use of dogs when hunting.
(2)-(3) [Reserved]
(4)
(i) We allow fishing and crabbing only with pole and line, rod and reel, or handheld line. We prohibit the use any method not expressly allowed, including trotlines, setlines, jug lines, limb lines, bows and arrows, gigs, spears, or crab traps.
(ii) We allow cast netting for bait for personal use along waterways in areas open to the public and along public roads.
(iii) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (a)(1)(xiii) and (xv) of this section apply.
(iv) We prohibit mooring to water control structures.
(i)
(i) Hunters may not discharge firearms while retrieving waterfowl on the refuge.
(ii) Access for waterfowl retrieval will be allowed only during State specified hunting seasons. We only allow hunters to enter the Laguna Atascosa Unit by boat, and hunters may only enter subunits 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10, for retrieval of downed waterfowl.
(2) [Reserved]
(3)
(i) We allow the incidental take of nilgai antelope, feral hog, and other rarely observed exotic ungulates (such as fallow deer, axis deer, sika deer, Barbary sheep, and black buck) during all refuge hunts, with the exception of American alligator hunts.
(ii) We require hunters to review the refuge hunter orientation email prior to any refuge hunt activity.
(iii) Bag limits for species hunted on the refuge are provided in the refuge hunt brochure annually.
(iv) We allow a scouting period prior to the commencement of each refuge hunt period. A permitted hunter and a limit of two non-permitted individuals may enter the hunt units during the scouting period, which begins after hunter orientation and ends at legal sunset. Each hunter must clearly display a Vehicle Validation Tag (FWS Form 3-2405) face up on the vehicle dashboard when scouting and hunting.
(v) We allow hunters to enter the refuge 1
(vi) Hunters may access hunt units only by foot or bicycle, including electric bicycles. You may only use a bicycle on designated routes; we prohibit off-road use of a bicycle.
(vii) We allow hunting from portable stands or by stalking and still hunting. There is a limit of one blind or stand per permitted hunter. Hunters must attach hunter identification (permit number or State license number) to the blind or stand. Hunters must remove all blinds and stands at the end of the permitted hunt period (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
(viii) During American alligator hunts, we allow hunters to leave hooks set over only one night period at a time; set lines must be checked daily.
(ix) Hunters must field dress all harvested big game in the field and check the game at the hunt check station before removal from the refuge. Hunters may use a nonmotorized cart to assist with the transportation of harvested game animals.
(x) We prohibit the killing or wounding of a game animal and then intentionally or knowingly failing to make a reasonable effort to retrieve and include it in the hunter's bag limit.
(4)
(i) We allow only pole and line, rod and reel, hand line, dip net, and cast net for fishing. We prohibit the use of crab traps or pots for crabbing.
(ii) Anglers must attend all fishing lines, crabbing equipment, and other fishing devices at all times.
(iii) Inside the refuge boundary on San Martin Lake, we allow bank and wade fishing within a designated area, which may be accessed only on foot.
Sec. 4, Pub. L. 73-121, 48 Stat. 402, as amended; sec. 4, Pub. L. 87-714, 76 Stat. 654; 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd, 1534.
The addition reads as follows:
(o)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is exchanging allocations of Amendment 80 cooperative quota (CQ) for Amendment 80 acceptable biological catch (ABC) reserves. This action is necessary to allow the 2025 total allowable catch (TAC) of yellowfin sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) to be harvested.
Effective August 26, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2025 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole Amendment 80 allocations of the TAC specified in the BSAI are 30,148 metric tons (mt), 63,975 mt, and 105,837 mt, respectively, as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025). The 2025 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves are 42,692 mt, 73,661 mt, and 113,908 mt, respectively, as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025).
The Alaska Seafood Cooperative has requested that NMFS exchange 9,000 mt of flathead sole TAC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector and 8,000 mt of rock sole TAC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector for 17,000 mt of yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves pursuant to §§ 679.91(i)(3) and 679.4(p). NMFS approves the completed Flatfish Exchange Application submitted by the Alaska Seafood Cooperative, which meets all the criteria specified at § 679.4(p)(3). Specifically, the Alaska Seafood Cooperative has sufficient ABC reserves of yellowfin sole, is exchanging an equal amount of unused flathead sole and rock sole, approval will not cause harvest to exceed an ABC or ABC reserve for any of these species, and NMFS can approve the exchange before the end of the calendar year in which it would be effective. Therefore, NMFS exchanges 9,000 mt of flathead sole TAC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector and 8,000 mt of rock sole TAC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector for 17,000 mt of yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and Amendment 80 ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts. Tables 13 and 15 of the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025) are revised as follows:
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Termination of rulemaking.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is withdrawing its proposed rule to amend its regulations to require disclosure of relevant interests by persons seeking to make oral presentations, participate in adjudicative proceedings, or submit petitions for rulemaking to the Commission because the Commission has not taken any action on this proposed rule since it was published in September 2023.
As of August 28, 2025, the proposed rule published on September 29, 2023, at 88 FR 67127, is withdrawn.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Hilda M. Garcia Concepcion, Division of Federal Court Litigation, Office of the General Counsel, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-7548;
The Commission encourages all interested stakeholders, particularly including consumers and consumer organizations, to participate actively in the agency's decision-making processes. Opportunities for public contributions include appearances at public hearings before the Commission, participation in adjudicative proceedings, and petitioning for rulemaking, among other opportunities. To that end, 16 CFR part 1025 establishes the Commission's Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings (“Rules of Practice”); 16 CFR part 1051 sets out the Procedures for Petitioning for Rule Making; 16 CFR part 1052 provides the Procedural Regulations for Informal Oral Presentations in Proceedings before the Commission; and 16 CFR part 1502 contains the Procedures for Formal Evidentiary Public Hearing.
On September 29, 2023, CPSC published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) stating the Commission's intention to amend its regulations to require disclosures of financial interests and sources of funding and other contributions by those seeking to present oral testimony, request rulemaking before the Commission, or participate in an adjudicative proceeding, as well as to require disclosure of certain corporate affiliations. The Commission received two comments on the proposed rule. No further action was taken by the Commission after the NPR was published.
This Commission finds that this proposal would impose heightened disclosure requirements that could chill public participation in Commission proceedings, duplicates existing federal mandates, and needlessly burdens stakeholders and consumers. The proposal also raises First Amendment concerns. The Commission believes that any Presiding Officer or the Commission itself can fully evaluate any testimony, participation or argument under current rules without new regulations that could be perceived as discouraging candor and make it harder for all members of the public to be heard. Because the Commission has not taken action on this proposed rule since 2023, the Commission is terminating this proceeding.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Termination of rulemaking.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) is withdrawing its proposed rule to amend section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 16 CFR part 1101 (6(b) Regulation). On February 26, 2014, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in this matter (79 FR 10712). On February 17, 2023, the Commission issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (88 FR 10432). The Commission has not taken any action on this rule since it was published in February 2023.
As of August 28, 2025 the proposed rule issued on February 26, 2014 and the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on February 17, 2023, are withdrawn.
Amy Colvin, Attorney, Division of Federal Court Litigation, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-7639; email:
The Commission is withdrawing the NPR and Supplemental NPR that proposed to amend the CPSC's regulation, Information Disclosure Under Section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, codified at 16 CFR part 1101.
Section 6(b) of the CPSA governs the Commission's disclosure of certain information to the public. In general, section 6(b)(1) requires, “prior to its public disclosure of any information obtained under this Act, or to be disclosed to the public in connection therewith,” that the Commission, “to the extent practicable,” provide manufacturers or private labelers with advance notice and opportunity to comment on the proposed disclosure, if the manner in which such consumer product is designated or described in such information “permit[s] the public to ascertain readily the identity of such manufacturer or private labeler.” 15 U.S.C. 2055(b)(1). The CPSA defines “manufacturer” to include an importer. 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11). Section 6(b)(1) also requires the Commission, prior to such public disclosure, to “take reasonable steps to assure” that the information CPSC intends to disclose “is accurate, and that such disclosure is fair in the circumstances and reasonably related to effectuating the purposes of this Act.”
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), Public Law No. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016, enacted on August 14, 2008, amended section 6 of the CPSA. The amendments shortened, from 30 days to 15 days the time for public disclosure of information (after complying with the provisions of section 6(b)). In addition, the amendments eliminated the requirement that the Commission publish a
On December 29, 1983, the Commission published a final rule interpreting section 6(b) of the CPSA. 48 FR 57406;
On February 26, 2014, the Commission published the 2014 NPR.
In 2023, the Commission published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that provided additional responses to the 2014 NPR and proposed additional changes to the 6(b) regulation.
No further action was taken by the Commission after the SNPR was published. The Commission has developed additional tools and processes to provide vital safety information to the public about consumer product hazards while at the same time meeting the requirements under section 6(b) to take the reasonable steps required to assure that any public disclosure of manufacturer/private labeler specific information is accurate, fair and reasonably related to effectuating the purposes of the CPSA. The Commission does not view section 6(b) or the rule as a bar to public disclosure of such information about product specific issues. Because the Commission has not acted on this proposed rule since 2023, the Commission is terminating this proceeding.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapters 3745-21 and 3745-110 into the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio” or “Ohio EPA”) submitted these revisions on March 30, 2022, and supplemented the submittal on February 1, 2023, and August 28, 2023. EPA is proposing to approve parts of OAC Chapters 3745-21
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0352 and EPA-R05-OAR-2023-0093 at
Katie Mullen, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-3490,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
EPA is proposing to approve parts of OAC Chapters 3745-21 and 3745-110 as satisfying some of the Moderate VOC RACT requirements of 182(b)(2) and NO
VOCs and NO
EPA's SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS indicates that States may meet RACT through the establishment of new or more stringent requirements that meet RACT control levels, through a certification that previously adopted RACT controls for a prior ozone NAAQS continue to represent adequate RACT control levels for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or with a combination of these two approaches. See 80 FR 12264, 12278-79 (March 6, 2015). As previously stated, a State may submit a negative declaration in instances where there are no sources covered by a particular CTG. EPA's SIP Requirements Rule for the 2015 ozone NAAQS retains the existing general 2008 RACT requirements for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See 83 FR 63007 (December 6, 2018).
On June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25776), EPA designated the Cleveland, OH nonattainment area and the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati, OH-KY nonattainment area as Marginal nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Cleveland, OH nonattainment area consists of Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit counties. The Ohio portion of the Cincinnati, OH-KY nonattainment area consists of Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren counties. EPA also designated Ashtabula County as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
EPA has previously determined that Chapter 3745-21 VOC regulations have met RACT for requirements associated with past ozone NAAQS and incorporated them into the Ohio SIP. See actions dated September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42451), September 30, 2020 (85 FR 68758), and March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15235). For certain source categories, Ohio is certifying the previously adopted RACT regulations and controls contained in OAC Chapter 3745-21 for VOCs continue to satisfy RACT requirements under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Ohio has also adopted new or more stringent RACT regulations in OAC Chapter 3745-21 for VOCs and in OAC Chapter 3745-110 for NO
EPA approved OAC Chapter 3745-21 into Ohio's SIP under previous ozone standards. EPA performed a RACT due diligence analysis which can be found in the technical support document (TSD)
Ohio's SIP submittal included minor revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-21 for clarification and agency and State formatting protocols. The minor revisions are included in the following sections: 3745-21-01, 3745-21-04, 3745-21-07, 3745-21-09, 3745-21-10, 3745-21-15, and 3745-21-18. EPA is proposing to approve the minor revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-21 because the revisions are non-substantive minor edits that do not alter the meaning or legal effect of these rules.
Ohio identified only two sources that fall into the categories covered by the 2016 CTG for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry located in the Cleveland, OH nonattainment area. Rather than adopt categorical rules for sources falling into categories covered by the 2016 oil and gas CTG, Ohio requested that EPA approve specific portions of source specific federally enforceable permits for these two facilities—Wylie Compressor Station and Smallwood facility—for incorporation into the Ohio SIP. EPA is proposing to approve these specific portions of these permits for incorporation into the SIP to fulfill RACT requirements for the Cleveland
The Wylie Compressor Station is a portable reciprocating natural gas compressor driven by a 68 hp natural gas fired compressor engine, emissions unit (EU) P001. EPA is proposing to approve sections C.1.b)(1)e., C.1.b)(2)a., C.1.c)(2), C.1.d)(2) and C.1.e)(4) of the Wylie Compressor Station construction permit for incorporation into the SIP as satisfying the Moderate area RACT requirement resulting from the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG in the Cleveland, OH Nonattainment area under the 2015 ozone standard. Please see more details on these sections below:
• C.1.b)(1)e—references that the control requirements located in C.1.c)(2) apply to reciprocating compressors located between the wellhead and point of custody transfer to the natural gas transmission and storage segment. Also, this section references that additional terms and conditions related to RACT can be found in C.1.b)(2)a.
• C.1.b)(2)a.—Because the compressor is portable, language has been added to clarify that the requirements only apply when the EU is installed and operating in a Moderate nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
• C.1.c)(2) contains operational restrictions to reduce VOC emissions by replacing reciprocating compressor rod packing on or before 26,000 hours of operation or every 36 months. EPA proposes to determine that these operational restrictions are RACT levels of control. See EPA's TSD and subsection H of section III of this preamble for more information on EPA's analysis.
• C.1.d)(2) contains the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for this EU and C.1.e)(4) contains requirements for submitting annual reports for this EU.
The Smallwood facility is a portable reciprocating natural gas compressor driven by a 145 hp natural gas fired engine, EU P001. EPA is proposing to approve sections C.1.b)(1)e., C.1.b)(2)b., C.1.c)(3), C.1.d)(7) and C.1.e)(5) of the Smallwood facility construction permit for incorporation into the SIP as satisfying the Moderate area RACT requirement resulting from the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG in the Cleveland, OH Nonattainment area under the 2015 ozone standard. Please see more details on these sections below:
• C.1.b)(1)e—references that the control requirements located in C.1.c)(3) apply to reciprocating compressors located between the wellhead and point of custody transfer to the natural gas transmission and storage segment. Also, this section references that additional terms and conditions related to RACT can be found in C.1.b)(2)b.
• C.1.b)(2)b.—Because the compressor is portable, language has been added to clarify that the requirements only apply when the EU is installed and operating in a Moderate nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
• C.1.c)(3) contains operational restrictions to reduce VOC emissions by replacing reciprocating compressor rod packing on or before 26,000 hours of operation or 36 months. EPA proposes to determine that these operational restrictions are RACT levels of control. See EPA's TSD and subsection H of section III of this preamble for more information on EPA's analysis.
• C.1.d)(7) contains the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for this EU and C.1.e)(5) contains requirements for submitting annual reports for this EU.
Ohio provided Negative Declarations for the following CTG categories: “Manufacturing of High-Density Polyethylene and Polypropylene Resin” and “VOC Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants.” Ohio performed searches for facilities meeting each of these CTG categories in the Cleveland, OH nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone standard. Ohio determined that there are no sources subject to either of these CTGs in the Cleveland, OH nonattainment area.
Major non-CTG VOC sources, which are subject to RACT, are stationary sources that have the potential to emit (PTE) at least 100 TPY of VOCs in Moderate ozone nonattainment areas and are not covered by the applicability criteria in the CTGs. Many major non-CTG VOC sources located in the ozone nonattainment area are subject to categorical RACT rules. Currently, Ohio's VOC RACT rules establish non-CTG RACT for the following five source categories. These rules were developed based upon the EPA's Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents or Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standards:
In EPA's due diligence analysis, which can be found in the TSD, EPA compares Ohio's non-CTG categorical RACT rules to other relevant State rules and ACTs. EPA found Ohio's rules to be consistent with similar non-CTG categorical rules adopted by other States and with the relevant ACTs. EPA has not identified any new control technologies that are reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility for these sources. As a result of EPA's due diligence analysis, EPA is proposing to determine that these non-CTG VOC RACT regulations are still representative of RACT for the Cleveland, OH nonattainment area for purposes of the 2015 ozone standard. See more about the due diligence process in section III, subsection H of this preamble.
OAC rules 3745-21-11 and 3745-110-03(J) require VOC and NO
OAC 3745-110 has not been previously submitted or approved into
Ohio EPA evaluated other States' recent RACT regulations and analyzed emissions and operational profiles of combustion units at major source facilities in Ohio to determine RACT requirements for these categories. These regulations establish NO
As part of its March 30, 2022, submittal, Ohio certified that the RACT requirements for CTG and non-CTG VOC and NO
EPA performed a due diligence analysis to validate Ohio's VOC and NO
EPA is also proposing to approve Ohio's VOC and NO
EPA is also proposing to approve OAC rule 3745-15-03, which sets forth reporting requirements for sources in Ohio through the construction permit program. OAC rule 3745-15-03 applies to all VOC and NO
EPA is proposing to approve parts of OAC Chapters 3745-21 as satisfying some of the Moderate VOC RACT requirements of 182(b)(2) of the CAA for the Cleveland, OH nonattainment area under the 2015 ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve parts of OAC Chapter 3745-110 as satisfying some of the Moderate NO
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Ohio Administrative Code Chapters 3745-21, effective on March 27, 2022, and 3745-110, effective on March 25, 2022, sections C.1.b)(1)e., C.1.b)(2)a., C.1.c)(2), C.1.d)(2) and C.1.e)(4) of the Wylie Compressor Station construction permit and sections C.1.b)(1)e., C.1.b)(2)b., C.1.c)(3), C.1.d)(7) and C.1.e)(5) of the Smallwood facility construction permit, discussed in section III of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
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, 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
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
• 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 rulemaking does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to the EPA on February 4, 2025. The revisions address the codification of the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APC & EC) Rule 19 and Regulations 9, 26, and 31 into the Code of Arkansas Rules (CAR). The revisions are non-substantive and administrative in nature, and do not add or relax any provisions in the approved SIP.
Written comments must be received on or before September 29, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2025-0015, at
Alethea Tsui-Bowen, EPA Region 6 Office, Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214-665-7555,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The SIP is a plan that specifies the manner in which the National Air Ambient Quality Standards (NAAQS) will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region in a state. States must develop and submit a SIP to EPA for approval as required by the CAA. A SIP includes air pollution regulations, control strategies, other means or techniques, and technical analyses developed by the state to help ensure that the state meets the NAAQS. When a state makes changes to the regulations and control strategies in its SIP, such revisions must be submitted to the EPA for approval and incorporation into the federally enforceable SIP.
The Arkansas SIP is the air quality protection strategy implemented by the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment (ADEE or State) pursuant to the CAA. The SIP consists of laws and rules, nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory measures, and other state enforceable requirements codified at 40 CFR part 52 subpart E. The Arkansas SIP is federally enforceable. All revisions to the SIP require EPA approval as mandated in section 110(l) of the Act.
On February 4, 2025, the State submitted SIP revisions to EPA that address the codification of the APC & EC Rule 19 and Regulations 9, 26, and 31 into the CAR. Rule 19 is the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control and includes Chapters 1 (Title, Intent and Purpose), 2 (Definitions), 3 (Protection of the NAAQS), 4 (Minor Source Review), 5 (General Emission Limitations Applicability to Equipment), 6 (Upset and Emergency Conditions), 7 (Sampling, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements), 9 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration), 10 (Rules for the Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Pulaski County), 11 (Major Source Permitting Procedures), 13 (Stage 1 Vapor Recovery), 14 (Reserved), 15 (Best Available Retrofit Technology), 18 (Effective Date) and the associated appendices (Insignificant Activities List and NAAQS List).
Regulation 9 is Fee Regulation and includes Chapters 1 (Title), 2 (Definitions), 3 (Permit Fee Payment), 5 (Air Permit Fees), and 9 (Administrative Procedures). Regulation 26 is Regulations of the Arkansas Operating Permit Program and includes Chapters 3 (Requirements for Permit Applicability), 4 (Applications for Permits), 5 (Action
In this SIP revision, codification involves the numbering of the SIP rules and regulations in a manner consistent with the CAR. The revisions are limited to codification and non-substantive administrative edits. For example, Regulation 9 is codified as Part 12, Rule 19 is codified as Part 41, Regulation 26 is codified as Part 42, and Regulation 31 is codified as Part 43. The administrative edits include, for example, “Commission” is replaced with “the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission” and “paragraph (E) of this definition” is replaced with “(b)(13)(E) of this section.” The submitted revisions renumber, relabel, edit, and restructure paragraphs within the revised parts. The submitted revisions do not relax, do not delete, and do not introduce new rules to the approved SIP. Due to the non-substantive and administrative nature of these revisions, these SIP revisions are not expected to contribute to violations of the NAAQS in Arkansas. Accordingly, we find the submitted revisions consistent with CAA section 110(l). Additional background and a table detailing each of the revisions to Regulation 9, Rule 19, Regulation 26, and Regulation 31 is provided in the Technical Support Document, available in the docket for this proposed rule. The State's submittal is also posted in the docket.
We are proposing to approve the revisions to the Arkansas SIP submitted to EPA on February 4, 2025. These revisions codify the corresponding rules and regulations in the Arkansas SIP. We are proposing to approve this SIP submission in accordance with the requirements of section 110 of the Act and EPA's regulations.
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 Arkansas regulations as described in sections II and III of this preamble. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, 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 CAA. 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, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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 rulemaking does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This SIP revision addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the enactment of a Basic vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for the five counties comprising the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE Moderate nonattainment area (Philadelphia nonattainment area) for the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Written comments must be received on or before September 29, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0130 at
Brian Rehn, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2176. Mr. Rehn can also be reached via email at
On September 28, 2023, Pennsylvania submitted to the EPA a SIP revision request titled “Basic I/M Program Certification” applicable to the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE Moderate nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. I/M programs are required for certain urbanized nonattainment areas classified as Moderate and higher based on criteria detailed in the CAA and the Federal I/M rule at 40 CFR 51 subpart S. The CAA establishes two performance levels of I/M programs: “Basic” and “Enhanced.” Enhanced I/M programs are required in areas classified as Serious, Severe, or Extreme for the ozone NAAQS. In addition, all Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in an Ozone Transport Region (OTR) as defined in the CAA are required to implement an Enhanced program regardless of air quality designation/classification in areas with a 1980 population greater than 100,000. By virtue of Pennsylvania's inclusion in an OTR, Pennsylvania already operates an Enhanced I/M Program that encompasses the nonattainment area (NAA), as described in Section I.B below.
The Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City NAA was initially required to demonstrate attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Marginal area attainment date of August 3, 2021. However, monitored ozone levels in the area failed to meet the NAAQS by that attainment date, so the area was reclassified by operation of law. In October 2022, the EPA issued a determination confirming that the area was reclassified from Marginal to Moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Section 182 of the CAA outlines SIP requirements for each classification that are generally cumulative (
In October 2022, the EPA provided states with guidance on evaluating a specific I/M program against the applicable Federal benchmark program outlined in the CAA and detailed in the
The EPA PSM guidance further specifies that in order to certify that an existing I/M program satisfies CAA I/M requirements, in addition to a PSM analysis, a state must show that all applicable requirements of the EPA's governing I/M regulations (including the eight I/M SIP submission requirements listed in the EPA's I/M rule at 40 CFR 51.372) are met. The certification submission requirements outlined by 40 CFR 51.372 include an implementation schedule with a list of milestones for the state I/M program, discussed later in this document. Additionally, the EPA's PSM guidance references seven additional program elements specified by the EPA's I/M rule that ensure that a state's program meets minimum requirements for an I/M program as discussed later in this document.
On October 26, 2015, the EPA published revised primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.70 parts per million (ppm) (based on the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over three years) to provide requisite protection of public health and welfare.
On June 4, 2018 (effective August 3, 2018), the EPA published a final rule that designated the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE area (including Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties as Pennsylvania's portion of the nonattainment area) as nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified the area as Marginal with an attainment deadline of August 3, 2021.
On October 7, 2022, the EPA issued a final determination that the Philadelphia NAA failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by its attainment date, and the area was reclassified from Marginal to Moderate, with a new attainment date of August 3, 2024.
To address the Basic I/M certification requirement for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia NAA, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision dated September 28, 2023. Due to the NAA's classifications under previous ozone NAAQS
The existing Enhanced I/M program is applicable countywide in each of the five counties comprising Pennsylvania's portion of the multi-state Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area. Pennsylvania operates a decentralized testing program, administered by privately-owned, licensed testing and repair stations, with emissions testing conducted on an annual basis. The emissions inspection requirement for vehicles in the Commonwealth's Philadelphia Region program varies by model year and vehicle type, as listed in Table 1 in this document.
On September 28, 2023, Pennsylvania submitted its “Basic I/M Program Certification for the Pennsylvania Portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City PA-NJ-MD-DE Moderate Nonattainment Area for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAASQ” (or I/M Certification SIP) as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP, for the purpose of demonstrating that Pennsylvania's existing, SIP-approved Enhanced I/M program meets applicable requirements for a Basic I/M program required for newly classified Moderate ozone NAAs, per CAA section 182(b) and 40 CFR 51.372(a)(1) through (8).
Because Pennsylvania has already adopted and implemented an Enhanced I/M program that the EPA has approved as described above in section I.C, the Commonwealth's September 2023 SIP revision contains a Basic PSM demonstration certifying that the existing Enhanced I/M program meets all relevant requirements for a Basic I/M program applicable to the NAA under the 2015 ozone NAAQS Moderate classification.
The EPA will further summarize applicable Federal I/M requirements and our review of Pennsylvania's means of addressing these requirements in their SIP submission below.
The PSM demonstration, as required by the EPA's I/M rule at 40 CFR 51.372(a)(2), must have a modeling analysis of ozone precursor emission level targets using the most current EPA mobile source emission model (or an alternative approved by the Administrator) showing that the program meets the applicable Basic performance standard described in 40 CFR 51.352.
An I/M performance standard is a benchmark of program design elements established by the CAA and the EPA I/M rule, to which a state's I/M program can be compared for its potential to reduce emissions of the ozone precursors. This analysis is performed using the most recent version of the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator Model (MOVES) available at the time of analysis. The PSM demonstration compares the resultant MOVES-derived emissions levels, expressed as a comparison of tons per day, of the ozone precursors nitrogen oxides (NO
Pennsylvania's methodology used to produce the emission data conforms to the recommendations provided in the EPA's MOVES Technical Guidance.
Pennsylvania's analysis utilizes a proprietary emissions inventory generation tool that post processes the results of batched MOVES scenarios to generate results for a specific area's emission inventory, transportation conformity, or mobile source emission control program development. The onroad mobile source emission inventory was developed using available travel data and this tool utilized the EPA's MOVES3 emission model. Though the EPA had released newer versions of the MOVES model (
To model I/M program benefits, the EPA's MOVES model utilizes I/M program parameters and historic program data, while the program design elements of EPA's Basic performance standard are used to model the benchmark program, as specified at 40 CFR 51.352(e). Pennsylvania's historic program data was used to generate
As part of its I/M Certification SIP, Pennsylvania's submission includes an I/M performance standard modeling analysis to demonstrate that the existing Enhanced I/M program for the Philadelphia area obtains the same or lower emission levels as the applicable EPA Basic I/M performance standard.
To demonstrate that the existing program meets the Basic I/M performance standard described in 40 CFR 51.352(e), Pennsylvania's program must be evaluated on a performance basis against that of the EPA's benchmark Basic I/M program. This comparison and evaluation uses the latest version of the EPA's MOVES emissions model to ensure that the Commonwealth's program achieves the same or better performance in reducing the ozone precursors (
Table 4 in this document shows the results of Pennsylvania's Basic I/M performance standard analysis for the Philadelphia NAA. The results of this modeling show that for a 2023 evaluation year, NO
Pennsylvania's PSM analysis indicates that the existing Enhanced I/M program for the Philadelphia area that the EPA has approved in PA's prior SIP submissions exceeds the comparable emissions benefits of the benchmark Federal Basic I/M performance standard—for the ozone precursors VOC and NO
In addition to conducting a PSM analysis to demonstrate that the existing I/M program is at least as effective in generating benefits as the EPA's model Basic I/M program, states are required to satisfy other applicable statutory and regulatory I/M program requirements. These regulatory requirements include showing compliance with the EPA's governing I/M regulations, including the aforementioned I/M SIP submission requirements of 40 CFR 51.372.
The submission requirements applicable to all I/M programs in 40 CFR 51.372 include an implementation schedule with a list of milestones for the state I/M program that shall at minimum include: (1) passage of enabling statutory or other legal authority; (2) proposal of draft regulations and promulgation of final regulations; (3) issuance of final specifications and procedures; (4) issuance of final Request for Proposals (if applicable); (5) licensing or certifications of stations and inspectors; (6) the date mandatory testing will begin for each model year to be covered by the program; (7) the date full-stringency cutpoints will take effect; and (8) all other relevant dates.
The EPA's PSM guidance references seven additional program elements from the EPA's I/M rule. The EPA has reviewed Pennsylvania's September 2023 certification SIP to ensure that its existing program meets all applicable I/M program requirements, including: (1) the aforementioned PSM analysis; (2) the geographic applicability of the I/M program; (3) a detailed discussion of each of the required design elements specified in the applicable EPA I/M rule subpart (
The EPA PSM guidance provides that implementation milestones specified at 40 CFR 51.372 (a)(1) are most relevant for new rather than existing state I/M programs.
The EPA's I/M SIP criteria at 40 CFR 51.372(a)(3) requires a description of program geographic applicability requirements for newly classified Moderate areas.
Per the EPA guidance and regulation, the Commonwealth detailed in the Basic I/M certification SIP submission the means by which it met and/or continues to meet each of the requirements of the I/M rule.
The EPA's I/M requirements at 40 CFR 51.372(a)(5) and (6) require a state to list as part of its SIP revision its legal authority to implement and operate an I/M program. The Commonwealth's legal authority to establish, implement, and operate an I/M program (including in the Philadelphia Region) is found in the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code at 75 Pa. C.S. section 4706
The EPA's I/M requirements at 40 CFR 51.372(a)(7) require a discussion of program implementing regulations, interagency agreements, and memoranda of understanding. Implementing regulations are established at 67 Pa. Code Chapter 177 and Appendices A and B, which were previously approved by the EPA into Pennsylvania's SIP on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32111) and October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313). Pennsylvania certifies that these prior submissions satisfy the requirements for Basic I/M.
The EPA's I/M requirements at 40 CFR 51.372(a)(8) require that states provide evidence of adequate funding and resources to implement all aspects of the program as part of the I/M SIP revision. Section B.8 of Pennsylvania's Basic I/M Program SIP Revision document details funding and resources that Pennsylvania employs to operate its existing Enhanced I/M program in the Philadelphia Area. Appendix B of Pennsylvania's SIP revision provides relevant portions of the latest 2018 oversight contract for the program. Pennsylvania's current program oversight contract establishes terms for the per-inspection fee that the contractor collects from licensed, private inspection stations to fund program oversight. Pennsylvania collects no fees directly from motorists and does establish a set cost for the test fee, instead allowing stations to set motorist inspection fees under a market-based approach. Costs for PennDOT personnel to administer the program are paid from the Pennsylvania Motor License Fund. Pennsylvania certifies that these mechanisms ensure adequate funding and resources to operate the program as required for Basic I/M.
The EPA finds that the Commonwealth has addressed each of the required elements of a Basic I/M program and that those program elements (which primarily consist of elements of the currently operating Enhanced I/M program for the Philadelphia Region) satisfy all the applicable I/M requirements for a Basic I/M program set forth in the EPA's I/M Rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. Based on our review, we find that the Commonwealth's MOVES-based PSM evaluation was conducted appropriately and meets the performance standard for a Basic I/M program and that the Commonwealth's PSM modeling was consistent with the most current guidance at the time of the Commonwealth's analysis. We therefore propose to find that the Pennsylvania I/M program for the Commonwealth's portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area meets applicable Basic I/M program SIP requirements under CAA section 182(b)(4) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, and the EPA's performance standard modeling guidance.
The EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's Basic I/M Certification SIP submitted September 28, 2023 against the applicable requirements of the CAA and proposes to find that Pennsylvania's Enhanced I/M Program SIP for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment Area meets all applicable requirements for a Basic I/M program, as required for a Moderate nonattainment area under the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not required to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. These Executive Orders do not apply to this action.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The proposed SIP approval, if finalized, would not impose any requirements but rather would determine that the State's submission complies with the CAA and applicable regulations.
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 proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state or local law and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
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
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that the EPA is proposing to approve would not 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 and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this proposed SIP approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations, but will simply approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP, thereby determining whether the requirements are or are not federally enforceable. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, this Pennsylvania I/M certification SIP for the 2015 Moderate ozone NAAQS 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).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve regulatory amendments that revise two previous program approvals from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP). The revisions include amendments to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) that revise the Connecticut State Operating Permit Program and amendments to RCSA that revise limitations on potential to emit Clean Air Act (CAA) pollutants. A significant aspect of this action involves revising the definition of “hazardous air pollutant” in the RCSA in response to EPA adding 1-bromopropane to the list of hazardous air pollutants. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before September 29, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2025-0655 at
Liam Numrich, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number 617-918-1307,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required all state and local permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that meet certain federal criteria. (42 U.S.C. 7661-7661e.) In implementing the operating permit programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the CAA. The focus of the operating permit program is to improve compliance and enforcement by issuing each source a permit that consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a federally enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements, the source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and how to determine compliance with those requirements.
Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. (See 40 CFR 70.3.) For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain operating permits. (See 40 CFR 72.30.) Examples of major sources include: those that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or particulate matter (PM 10); those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP); or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a combination of HAPs. (40 CFR 70.2.) In areas that are not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, major sources are defined by the gravity of the nonattainment classification. (
Section 112(b) of the CAA established a list of 189 HAP. This provision of the CAA also provides the EPA with the authority to modify the list. In response to a petition to the Administrator to list 1-bromopropane or 1-BP (also known as n-propyl bromide (nPB)), the EPA, for the first time, added a new HAP to the CAA section 112(b) HAP list (HAP list) on January 5, 2022. (87 FR 393.) This new addition to the HAP list prompted updates to Connecticut's definition of “hazardous air pollutant” in the RSCA in order to keep Connecticut's regulations consistent with listing or delisting chemical compounds from the federal HAP list.
The Administrator may, under the authority of section 112(l) and 40 CFR 63.91, approve a State program designed to establish limits on the potential to emit HAP listed pursuant to section 112 of the CAA. Any request for approval under this subpart shall meet all section 112(l) approval criteria specified by the otherwise applicable Federal section 112 rule, emission standard, or requirement. Approval of the rule delegates to the State the authority to implement and enforce the approved rule in lieu of the otherwise applicable Federal section 112 rule. CT DEEP's 112(l) program was approved on April 11, 2022.
On June 14, 2024, CT DEEP submitted revisions to its State Operating Permit Program and to its Approved Limitations on Potential to Emit CAA Section 112 pollutants to EPA. These amendments revise two previous program approvals for EPA's approval. They consist of (1) amendments to sections 22a-174-1 (Definitions) and 22a-174-33 (Title V sources) of the RCSA that revise the Connecticut State Operating Permit Program; and (2) amendments to RCSA sections 22a-174-1, 22a-174-33a (Limit on Premises-Wide Actual Emissions Below 50% of Title V Source Thresholds), and 22a-174-33b (Limit on Premises-Wide Actual Emissions Below 80% of Title V Source Thresholds) that revise limitations on potential to emit CAA section 112 pollutants for the state's CAA section 112(l) state program to limit the potential to emit HAP pollutants below Title V source thresholds.
In accordance with Title V program revisions required at 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2) and CAA 112(l) state program revision requirements at 40 CFR 63.91, the primary change in CT DEEP's June 14, 2024, submittal is a new definition of “hazardous air pollutant” in RCSA section 22a-174-1. The current definition of “hazardous air pollutant” is deleted and replaced with the following: `Hazardous air pollutant,' `Federal hazardous air pollutant' or `HAP,' except as otherwise provided in section 22a-174-29 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, means any air pollutant listed in section 112(b)(1) of the Act, inclusive of deletions and additions set out in 40 CFR part 63, subpart C, as may be amended from time to time.”
This new definition is consistent with EPA's most recent change to the federal definition of HAP to include 1-bromopropane in the list of HAP established under the CAA section 112 program. The new definition also incorporates future changes to the federal definition resulting from EPA's listing or delisting of a chemical compound.
CT DEEP submitted companion changes to RCSA section 22a-174-33a(a)(4) and RCSA section 22a-174-33b(a)(10) to effectuate the change in the definition of “hazardous air pollutant” at RCSA section 22a-174-1 into those two regulations as they regulate HAP emissions as a CAA section 112(l) state program.
In addition to this change, there are a number of revisions to CT DEEP's Title V operating permit program at RCSA section 22a-174-33 to correct citations to another Connecticut air quality regulation. The corrections will better ensure that Title V applications, notifications, reports, and records are properly certified by a responsible official, and are as follows:
• RCSA section 22a-174-33(g)(1)(G). The internal citation to section 22a-174-2a(a)(5) is corrected to 22a-174-2a(a)(4).
• RCSA section 22a-174-33(h)(2). The internal citation to section 22a-174-2a(a)(5) is corrected to 22a-174-2a(a)(4).
• RCSA section 22a-174-33(o)(4). The internal citation to section 22a-174-2a(a)(5) is corrected to 22a-174-2a(a)(4).
• RCSA section 22a-174-33(p)(3). The internal citation to section 22a-174-2a(a)(5) is corrected to 22a-174-2a(a)(4).
• RCSA section 22a-174-33(q)(1). The internal citation to section 22a-174-2a(a)(5) is corrected to 22a-174-2a(a)(4).
• RCSA section 22a-174-33(q)(2). The internal citation to section 22a-174-2a(a)(5) is corrected to 22a-174-2a(a)(4).
EPA's analysis of Connecticut's submittal finds the revisions necessary for maintaining consistency between state regulations and federal regulations. Due to the addition of 1-bromopropane as a HAP under the CAA, the change to the definition of “hazardous air pollutant” in RCSA ensures that Connecticut state regulations will include all HAPs, which is necessary in their Title V program and 112 program. The other changes to Connecticut's Title
EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's revisions to its Title V Operating Permit program and CAA section 112(l) state program revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve revisions to RCSA section 22a-174-1 and RCSA section 22a-174-33 as Title V program revisions and RCSA section 22a-174-1, RCSA section 22a-174-33a and RCSA section 22a-174-33b as CAA section 112(l) state program revision.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the CT DEEP rules regarding definitions and permitting requirements discussed in sections I and II of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve CAA Section 112(l) and Title V submissions that comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. Thus, in reviewing 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);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the submission is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Acid rain, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Licensing and registration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
In proposed rule document C2-2025-12347, appearing on page 30833 in the issue of Wednesday, July 9, 2025, make the following correction:
On page 30833, in the first column, in the 37th line, “September 2, 2025” should read “August 29, 2025”.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on deregulatory options to encourage providers to build, maintain, and upgrade their networks such that all consumers and businesses can benefit from technological strides in the communications marketplace, while safeguarding consumers' access to critical emergency services such as 911. These actions propose to reduce regulatory barriers that prevent much-needed investment in and deployment of broadband and thus hinder the transition to all-IP networks offering a
Comments are due on or before September 29, 2025; reply comments are due on or before October 27, 2025.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 25-208 and 25-209, by the following method:
•
•
• 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.
•
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
For further information about this proceeding, please contact Michele Berlove, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1477, or
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket Nos. 25-208, 25-209; FCC 25-37, adopted on July 24, 2025, and released on July 25, 2025. The full text of this document is available for public inspection at the following internet address:
1. Section 251(c)(5) of the Act, which establishes incumbent local exchange carriers' (LECs) obligations when making changes that could affect the interoperability of their facilities or networks, is a notice-only provision. An incumbent LEC may thus make changes to its network, including switching from copper facilities to fiber or other next-generation facilities, without the need to receive prior Commission authorization so long as it provides “reasonable public notice”—a requirement the Commission historically has reflected in its implementing rules. Consistent with section 251(c)(5), the Commission's implementing rules require that an incumbent LEC provide public notice regarding any network change that (1) will affect a competing service provider's performance or ability to provide service; (2) will affect the incumbent LEC's interoperability with
2. Earlier this year, the Bureau issued the
3. The Bureau found that this waiver would result in “more effective implementation of overall policy” of the transition from legacy networks to next-generation networks. It also concluded that by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, as contemplated by the
4. We propose to eliminate all filing requirements with the Commission currently set forth in our network change disclosure rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
5. What benefit, if any, does the public gain from requiring incumbent LECs to file their network change disclosures with the Commission? What benefit, if any, does the public gain from public notices released by the Commission notifying the public of incumbent LEC network change disclosures? Conversely, what costs do incumbent LECs incur in connection with these requirements? What would be the likely cost savings to carriers from eliminating all of these filing requirements? Does eliminating all filing requirements, while maintaining public notice requirements consistent with section 251(c)(5), meaningfully reduce the regulatory burdens on carriers? Does publishing public network change disclosures through carriers' own channels, and not with the Commission, provide reasonable public notice, as required by section 251(c)(5) of the Act?
6. As an alternative to our proposal to eliminate all network change disclosure filing and associated requirements, we seek comment on whether we should instead forbear from all public notice requirements imposed by section 251(c)(5) and our implementing rules.
7. Section 251(c)(5)'s “reasonable public notice” requirement ensures that all providers are aware of changes that may affect a carrier's ability to provide service. Congress enacted section 251(c)(5) as one of a number of market-opening provisions at a time when incumbent LECs held a virtual monopoly in the communications marketplace. The Commission based its rules implementing section 251(c)(5)'s public notice requirements on the then-existing industry practice of notifying carriers of network changes via industry fora, industry publications, and the internet. The filing requirements served as an additional measure to ensure “wide availability of pertinent network change information,” particularly for small entities with limited resources. In the
8. Section 10 of the Act requires the Commission to forbear from applying any requirement of the Act or of our regulations to a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service if the Commission determines that (1) enforcement of the requirement “is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory,” (2) enforcement of that requirement “is not necessary for the protection of consumers,” and (3) “forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is consistent with the public interest.” When determining whether forbearance is consistent with the public interest, the Commission must consider “whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or regulation will promote competitive market conditions.” Forbearance is warranted only if all three criteria are satisfied. Section 10 of the Act also requires the Commission to determine whether the requirements in section 251(c) of the Act “have been fully implemented” before forbearing from them. The Commission has previously concluded that the requirements in section 251(c) have been fully implemented because the Commission issued rules implementing that section that went into effect. The D.C. Circuit upheld this conclusion using a
9.
10.
11.
12. We also seek comment on how to ensure that 911 service remains available and fully functional for consumers if we were to forbear from section 251(c)(5)'s requirements. The Commission has consistently emphasized that a key element of “promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications” is to ensure that the American people have access to reliable and resilient 911 communications service. We therefore seek comment on how to ensure that granting forbearance would not lead to interruptions in 911 service. In particular, we note that network transitions subject to section 251(c)(5) may occur in areas where 911 authorities and originating service providers (OSPs) have not yet transitioned to Next Generation 911 (NG911) and will therefore continue for some time to rely on legacy selective routers and other TDM-based infrastructure for delivery of 911 calls to public safety answering points (PSAPs). Unlike legacy 911 systems that rely on Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) infrastructure, NG911 uses internet Protocol (IP)-based formats and routing and supports the transmission of text, photos, videos, and data. The Commission recently adopted nationwide NG911 transition rules that define responsibilities and deadlines for originating service providers (OSPs), such as wireless carriers, to deliver 911 calls to NG911 systems, among other requirements. The NG911 Order also establishes the demarcation point for assigning cost responsibilities for OSPs to deliver 911 traffic to NG911 systems and for 911 authorities to route 911 traffic to PSAPs. Some commenters have expressed concern that in such circumstances, discontinuing operation of critical TDM circuits in the 911 call path without prior notice could lead to disruption or interruption of 911 calls. We seek comment on this concern and whether safeguards are needed to ensure the continuity of 911 service. For example, should we require advance notice for network changes that could disrupt traffic to 911 networks to allow time for substitute services to be arranged? Should the Commission reserve the right to direct a carrier to temporarily delay a section 251(c)(5) network change if it would imminently disrupt 911 service? On what basis would the Commission have the authority to do so? Alternatively, could forbearance from section 251(c)(5)'s requirements help accelerate the deployment of the next-generation networks necessary for NG911?
13. We next examine our rules governing the section 214(a) discontinuance process. We first take a close look at our rules governing technology transitions discontinuances and seek comment on various ways to replace, forbear from, simplify, or otherwise revise our section 214(a) discontinuance rules to expedite the transition from legacy services to next-generation services. We seek comment on the possible regulatory costs and delays for carriers seeking to discontinue services, and ultimately for consumers who must wait longer for advanced services or may experience a
14. Section 214(a) of the Act provides that a carrier may not discontinue, reduce, or impair a telecommunications service without Commission authorization. Section 214(a)'s discontinuance obligations apply to interstate voice and data telecommunications services, but not to services provisioned by a carrier that fall outside of the purview of Title II of the Act, such as information services or data or other services offered on a private carriage basis. While the Commission has not categorized interconnected VoIP as either a telecommunications service or an information service, it extended the section 214(a) discontinuance obligations to include that service. In evaluating whether to grant such authorization, the Commission must determine whether the discontinuance would adversely impact the public interest. All applicants seeking to discontinue a service on a streamlined basis are required to file a section 214 application in accordance with the Commission's rules governing notice, opportunity for comment, review, and processing requirements. Such applications are automatically granted on a specified date unless the Bureau has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective. Under such streamlined processing, a discontinuance application is automatically granted on the 31st day (for non-dominant carriers) or the 60th day (for dominant carriers) after the Bureau accepts the application for filing. The Bureau has the discretion to remove an application from streamlined processing “when the public interest demands a more searching review.” The Bureau will generally authorize the discontinuance “unless it is shown that customers would be unable to receive service or a reasonable substitute from another carrier or that the public convenience is otherwise adversely affected.” In evaluating whether “the public convenience and necessity is otherwise adversely affected” by the discontinuance, the Commission has long applied a five-factor balancing test. This test analyzes: (1) the financial impact on the common carrier of continuing to provide the service; (2) the need for the service in general; (3) the need for the particular facilities in question; (4) increased charges for alternative services; and (5) the existence, availability, and adequacy of alternatives.
15.
16. In the June 2018
17. We first propose replacing the Adequate Replacement Test and the Alternative Options Test with one rule that would apply to all technology transition discontinuance applications. We next seek comment on two alternatives to this approach, namely: (1) eliminating the tests and the technology transition discontinuance distinction altogether; or (2) granting forbearance relief in certain contexts. We also seek comment more generally on whether there are additional ways in which we might further streamline the discontinuance process for carriers choosing to discontinue legacy voice services beyond those we describe below. We encourage commenters to be as specific as possible and to support any proposals with as much evidence as is available.
18. We propose to replace both the Adequate Replacement Test and the
19.
20. We seek comment on whether the Alternative Options Test has had the intended effect of “[r]emoving regulatory barriers causing unnecessary costs or delay when carriers seek to transition from legacy networks and services to broadband networks and services,” or whether, as USTelecom argues, it has “fallen short of the Commission's intent”? As discussed further below, the Bureau concurred with USTelecom's assertion that “in the nearly seven years since the Alternative Options Test . . . was adopted, the Wireline Competition Bureau . . . has found that presumptive streamlined treatment under the . . . test was available only eight times” and thus adopted a limited waiver of the word “stand-alone” in the Alternative Options Test. Do commenters think this waiver is sufficient to enable the test, as USTelecom states, “to align . . . with the Commission's aims”? Or, would the replacement of both this test and the Adequate Replacement Test with a single, consolidated rule more effectively accelerate and streamline the technology transitions discontinuance process while providing adequate protection to consumers? Are there any other considerations that we should take into account regarding the adoption of a single, consolidated rule, particularly regarding the potential impact on consumers? We also seek comment on the extent to which our proposal ensures that subscribers maintain ready access to emergency services via 911.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28. As an alternative to our proposal to replace the Adequate Replacement Test and Alternative Options Test with a single, consolidated rule for technology transitions discontinuances, we seek comment on whether we should instead eliminate the technology transitions distinction entirely and make all technology transitions discontinuance applications eligible for streamlined processing, pursuant to § 63.71(f)(1) of our rules. Streamlined treatment of a discontinuance application entails the automatic grant of a discontinuance application on a specific date unless the Bureau has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective. Under such streamlined processing, a discontinuance application is
29. As an alternative to revising our rules, we seek comment on whether we should forbear, on our own motion, from applying section 214 discontinuance requirements with respect to the discontinuance of legacy voice service in some or all of the following specific instances: (1) where the discontinuing carrier has deployed a replacement network, such as fiber or fixed wireless, in the affected area over which it offers interconnected VoIP service; (2) where interconnected VoIP service is available from either the discontinuing carrier or a third-party provider throughout the affected area; (3) where voice service is available from at least one facilities-based mobile wireless service provider throughout the affected area; (4) where the discontinuing carrier has deployed a replacement voice service throughout the affected area for a specified period of time and for which the carrier has a certain number of existing subscribers; (5) where there is fixed terrestrial broadband with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 milliseconds (ms) throughout the affected area; and (6) where there is low earth orbit satellite broadband service with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 ms throughout the affected area. The Commission has previously found 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 ms sufficient to support over-the-top VoIP. Over-the-top VoIP is a type of VoIP traffic routed to or from an end user “over the top” of a broadband connection provided by a third party. We also seek comment on whether we should forbear from our section 214(a) discontinuance requirements for resold services that are the subject of a technology transitions discontinuance application from the originating provider. Alternatively, should we forbear from applying the discontinuance requirements in section 214 and our rules with respect to all applications to discontinue any type of service, without qualification?
30. The Act requires us to forbear from applying any requirement of the Act or of our regulations to a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service if we determine that: (1) enforcement of the requirement is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of that requirement is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying that requirement is consistent with the public interest. In making the public interest determination, we must also consider, pursuant to section 10(b) of the Act, “whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or regulation will promote competitive market conditions.” We seek comment on whether forbearing from all discontinuance requirements under section 214(a) and the Commission's implementing rules in any or all of the situations described above would satisfy each of these statutory criteria.
31.
32. We seek comment on whether, in instances where a replacement service already exists throughout the affected service area, we should conclude that it necessarily follows that section 214(a) discontinuance processes are not required to ensure just and reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms of service. In such instances, any customers of the legacy voice services being discontinued are free to transition to the replacement service offered by their existing carrier or a third-party provider. Given the state of competition in the marketplace, would a discontinuance involving any of these scenarios provide incentives for new carriers to serve customers following the discontinuance? Are there areas where, despite the broad scope of wireless and satellite service offerings, no alternative services exist, and if so, should the section 214 discontinuance process remain unchanged for those areas?
33.
34.
35.
36.
37. In instances where the discontinuing carrier has deployed a replacement network, such as fiber or fixed wireless, throughout the affected area over which it offers interconnected VoIP service, should we require that services provisioned over such replacement network be of comparable or superior quality to the service being discontinued? How would we define what constitutes “comparable or superior quality” in such instances?
38. In instances where fixed terrestrial broadband service with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 ms is available throughout the affected area, are there further requirements we should consider, such as the length of time the fixed terrestrial broadband service has been in place or the number of subscribers it has?
39. In addition, or in the alternative, in any or all of the scenarios we have described above, should carriers be required to send notice to their customers informing them that their legacy voice service is being discontinued and what sort of replacement services, if any, are available throughout the affected area? Would any consumer protection concerns be obviated were we to condition forbearance relief on the requirement that resellers in such circumstances provide notice to their customers? If so, should that notice be consistent with the customer notice requirements set forth in § 63.71(a), or should they differ in some way? Should customer notices be transmitted via traditional mail, email, or some alternative means? Should the form of transmittal align with any communication preferences the consumer has indicated to their current service provider, such as mode of communication (
40. In the event that we conclude that our proposal to replace both the Adequate Replacement Test and Alternative Options Test with a single, consolidated test for all technology transitions discontinuance applications is not appropriate, we seek comment on whether we should instead make more targeted revisions to either the Adequate Replacement Test or Alternative Options Test, or both.
41. We seek comment on whether, if we retain the Adequate Replacement Test for streamlined processing of technology transitions discontinuance applications, we should adopt certain revisions to that test. As noted above, the Commission adopted this test because it found that “clear, streamlined criteria will eliminate uncertainty that could potentially impede the industry from a prompt transition to newer technologies.” Do commenters agree that the test has had these effects? If not, how has the test prevented the industry from undertaking such a prompt transition? Do certain prongs of the test pose barriers to rapidly seeking discontinuance authorizations for legacy services? If so, which ones, and how? Are certain prongs of the test unnecessary or redundant? If so, which ones, and how so?
42.
43. As noted above, § 63.602(b)(1) of the Commission's rules requires an applicant seeking streamlined processing of its technology transitions discontinuance application to demonstrate, by either certifying or showing, based on the totality of the circumstances, that one or more replacement service(s) “offers substantially similar levels of network infrastructure and service quality as the service being discontinued.” The Commission adopted this prong of the Adequate Replacement Test to ensure that a replacement service “is performing adequately enough to serve as a replacement for a legacy TDM service,” and that the “customer experience with the replacement service that is substantially similar to the customer experience with the service being discontinued.” In doing so, the Commission acknowledged that “a comparison between a legacy voice service and its potential replacement is not an apples-to-apples comparison,” and that it would therefore evaluate “actual performance numbers . . . in a holistic manner to determine the overall network performance.” In light of the developments in the voice services marketplace since the adoption of the Adequate Replacement Test in 2016, is compliance with the specific testing methodology and parameters in the Technical Appendix necessary for carriers to ensure that the replacement service offers “substantially similar levels of network infrastructure and service quality as the service being discontinued?” If so, why?
44. We alternatively seek comment on whether we should eliminate the network performance prong of the Adequate Replacement Test altogether. As noted above, the Commission adopted the first prong of the Adequate Replacement Test to ensure that “the replacement service will perform as effectively as the legacy voice service.” While the Commission acknowledged that, “[f]or most data communications, a packet-switched network (
45.
46. The Commission adopted this third prong of the Adequate Replacement Test because it recognized “the importance of specified key applications and functionalities that today are associated with legacy voice services, while at the same time recognizing that consumer preferences will evolve as part of technology transitions.” The Commission also made clear that “carriers are not required to provide access to these capabilities in perpetuity,” and stated that, after the planned sunset of its initial list of key applications in 2025, “the interoperability requirement will no longer be part of our Section 214 analysis.” The Commission listed the following devices as key applications for the purposes of the interoperability requirement: fax machines, home security alarms, medical monitoring devices, analog-only caption telephone sets, and point-of-sale terminals. The Commission also described a framework for identifying whether other applications or functionalities not specifically identified in the list should receive similar status, and adopted a process for modifying the list. The
47. We seek comment on whether this prong of the Adequate Replacement Test is needed or relevant today. Given consumers' rapid shift away from TDM-based services to IP-based services capable of supporting a vast array of applications, do consumers still have any interoperability concerns? Are there any remaining TDM-based devices on which consumers rely for any reason and which cannot be replaced by effective IP-based solutions?
48. Are there specific concerns about using IP-based technologies, such as real-time text (RTT), as a replacement for analog text-based technologies, such as TTY, used by people with hearing or speech disabilities? The Commission's rules require wireless providers to comply with RTT-TTY interoperability requirements, but do not require that all IP-based technologies support RTT. Are there measures the Commission should take to promote the transition of all TTY users to functionally equivalent IP solutions? Are there reasonably reliable estimates of the approximate number of people in the United States, or in particular jurisdictions, that still use TTY and other analog text-based technologies? What are the primary barriers preventing their migration to IP-based technologies? How should the Commission ensure such users can continue to access telecommunications relay services (TRS) in areas where legacy TDM services have been discontinued? How should the Commission ensure that users of other analog forms of TRS (
49.
50. On March 20, 2025, the Bureau adopted an order waiving this requirement for a period of two years. The Bureau found that developments in the voice service marketplace and the large-scale adoption of broadband among consumers supported waiver of the single-service requirement. Specifically, the Bureau noted that the “shift among consumers away from managed, stand-alone voice service to bundled voice and broadband service, which supports a near-infinite variety of over-the-top services, applications, and functionalities obviates the need for a single voice service that satisfies all three prongs.” The Bureau also found that waiver of the single-service requirement serves the public interest because it will help “free up carrier resources to devote to the development and deployment of next-generation networks.” The Bureau also noted that the fact that some “technologically advanced VoIP services may only be available in bundles with broadband, text messaging, or some other service” should not preclude an adequate replacement finding if, as is often the case, consumers would pay either the same price or less for the bundle than they did for the legacy voice service.
51. Do commenters agree with the Bureau's assessment? Have consumers experienced cost savings when transitioning from a single legacy voice service to a service bundle? How has the waiver of the single-service requirement affected carriers' plans to discontinue legacy voice services and transition customers to next-generation replacement services? Given the ever-increasing availability of over-the-top services, is it still reasonable for consumers “ `to expect a single service to provide adequate network infrastructure and service quality, performance from critical applications, and access to other key applications and functionalities,' such as fax machines, home security alarms, and analog-only caption telephone sets[?]” We seek comment on customer reactions to transitioning from a single service to a service bundle. Have customers experienced difficulties in any of these areas and, if so, what have those difficulties been? According to recent Broadband Data Collection (BDC) data, 24 million Americans, or 7% of the nation's population, lack access to fixed broadband. For the remaining consumers still without access to a broadband connection, how will carriers ensure such consumers have access to an adequate replacement service?
52.
53. We seek comment on whether, if we retain the Alternative Options Test set forth in § 63.71(f)(2)(ii), we should adopt certain revisions to that test for streamlined processing of technology transitions discontinuance applications. The Commission's stated goal in adopting the Alternative Options Test was to “provid[e] additional opportunities to streamline the discontinuance process for legacy voice services, with appropriate limitations to protect consumers and the public interest, . . . allow[ing] carriers, including small carriers, to more quickly redirect resources to next-generation networks, and the public to receive the benefit of those new networks.” Do carriers agree that adoption of the test has had these effects? If not, how has the test prevented the industry from undertaking such a prompt transition? Do certain requirements of the Alternative Options Test pose barriers to
54.
55. Under § 63.71(f)(2)(iii) of the Commission's rules, a service is “stand-alone” if a customer is “not required to purchase a separate broadband service to access the voice service.” On March 20, 2025, the Bureau, acting on delegated authority, granted USTelecom's petition for waiver of the stand-alone requirement for a period of two years, finding that, since the Alternative Options Test was adopted, “the technology has improved while the marketplace for voice services, such as interconnected VoIP and mobile voice, has vastly expanded and spurred the creation of new and innovative communications technologies and bundled service offerings that benefit consumers.” Does the Bureau's rationale in granting the waiver relief support removing the stand-alone requirement altogether? Do commenters agree with the Bureau's assessment and characterization of the voice service and broadband marketplace? How has the stand-alone requirement affected carriers' plans to discontinue legacy voice services and transition customers to next-generation replacement services?
56. USTelecom notes that “stand-alone VoIP service typically requires installation and maintenance of broadband equipment and ongoing provision of transmission capability,” which is costly for carriers and requires “system and IT support that is difficult to justify for a product with relatively low demand.” It adds that these inefficiencies “can raise costs for consumers and reduce capital available for investment and innovation.” Do commenters agree with USTelecom's assessment that the stand-alone requirement is overly burdensome to carriers? Has the waiver of the stand-alone requirement alleviated these concerns and enabled carriers to rapidly discontinue legacy voice service in favor of promoting next-generation IP-based replacements? Will the proposed changes result in an increase in the pace and frequency of carriers upgrading networks? Given the widespread adoption of broadband connections today, do customers reasonably expect or desire stand-alone voice service? How might removing the stand-alone requirement affect consumers, positively or negatively? Have customers that have transitioned from a stand-alone voice service to a bundled voice service experienced any difficulties or increased costs? For consumers that are transitioning, do carriers offer any introductory promotions that help offset the cost of bundled voice service? We note that consumers remain able to file comments or oppositions to discontinuance applications. Does the comment procedure provide adequate protection for consumers?
57.
58. Under § 63.71(f)(2)(ii)(A) of the Commission's rules, an applicant seeking to discontinue a legacy voice service under the Alternative Options Test must show that it offers a stand-alone interconnected VoIP service throughout the affected service area. The Commission required a showing that the discontinuing carrier itself provides interconnected VoIP service in addition to the availability of a voice service from an unaffiliated third party because it “expect[ed] customers will benefit from competition between facilities-based providers.” This competition would effectively replace the need for a discontinuing carrier to comply with the specific testing methodology and parameters required under the Adequate Replacement Test to ensure the adequacy of the replacement service.
59. How has this requirement inhibited the ability for carriers to rapidly discontinue legacy voice services and transition subscribers to next-generation IP-based voice services? How would revising the first part of the test to include third-party facilities-based interconnected VoIP services affect carriers and consumers? Assuming that competition has indeed worked to ensure that available voice options are adequate for consumers under the current test, and given that a carrier would still need to show that at least one other alternative facilities-based wireline or wireless voice service is available from another unaffiliated provider throughout the affected service area under the second part of the test, what effect, if any, would this change have on the quality of replacement service options? In instances where interconnected VoIP service is available from either the discontinuing carrier or a third-party provider throughout the affected area, does it matter whether the interconnected VoIP service is provided by the discontinuing carrier or a third-party provider? Why or why not?
60. We next consider whether to adopt a variety of targeted proposals relating to our discontinuance rules under § 63.71, namely: (1) codifying the relief granted in the
61. We propose to eliminate any application filing requirements associated with grandfathering a legacy voice service, a lower-speed data telecommunications service, defined as those operating at speeds below 25/3 Mbps, or an interconnected VoIP service provisioned over copper wire, thus codifying the relief granted by the Bureau in the
62.
63.
64. The Commission expedited the process for discontinuing legacy services in 2017 in the
65. The Commission took additional steps to expedite the discontinuance process for legacy services the following year in the
66. In the
67. The Bureau subsequently issued the
68. We seek comment on whether the waiver relief granted in the
69. Rather than maintaining the grant of blanket 214 authority granted in the
70. We seek comment on whether we should forbear from all section 214(a) discontinuance requirements, including the Commission's implementing rules, for all lower-speed data telecommunications services. This alternative would not apply to the discontinuance of legacy voice services, which are encompassed by Sections I.B.1-2. As noted above, the Commission previously expedited the streamlined processing of applications to grandfather services with speeds below 25/3 Mbps. We also sought comment above on how to define “lower-speed data telecommunications service” for purposes of our proposed rules. We now seek comment on whether forbearance would satisfy the criteria set forth in section 10 of the Act.
71.
72.
73.
74. Will such forbearance foster advanced communications by providing carriers with incentives to develop and deploy higher-speed data telecommunications services? Will forbearance help promote competition in the market for higher-speed replacement services? Will granting such forbearance relief reduce unnecessary costs and burdens associated with compliance with the Commission's discontinuance rules, and free up capital needed for the deployment of next-generation networks? Is this analysis dependent on how we ultimately define lower-speed data telecommunications services and, if so, how?
75.
76. In addition or in the alternative, should discontinuing carriers be required to send notice to their customers informing them of the planned discontinuance and any available replacement service in the affected area? How might consumers be affected if a discontinuing carrier does not provide a notice of planned discontinuance? What form should such a notice take? Should it be transmitted via traditional mail, email, or some alternative means? Should the form of transmittal align with any communication preferences the
77. We propose to extend the 31-day automatic grant period applicable to applications to discontinue services for which a carrier is non-dominant to apply to all instances in which a domestic carrier submits a request to discontinue service. We seek comment on this proposal.
78. Pursuant to § 63.71(f)(1) of the Commission's rules, a non-technology transitions discontinuance application—if filed by a domestic, non-dominant carrier—shall be automatically granted on the 31st day after its filing with the Commission unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective. As discussed in Section I.B above, technology transitions discontinuance applications currently are not automatically eligible for streamlined processing, but rather must satisfy either the Adequate Replacement Test or the Alternative Options Test in order to qualify for such processing. For applications to discontinue a service for which the provider is dominant, the automatic grant period is 60 days. We propose to eliminate the distinction between dominant and non-dominant carriers for purposes of discontinuance applications. In doing so, we would apply the 31-day automatic grant period to any domestic carrier who submits a request to discontinue any service.
79. We propose to conclude that there is no material reason to limit application of the 31-day automatic grant period to non-dominant carriers given the Commission's available discretion to remove an application from streamlined processing at any time during those 31 days should it deem it appropriate to do so. We propose to conclude that 31 days is sufficient time for the Commission to consider and come to a determination as to whether a grant should be allowed to auto-grant or, instead, whether the discontinuance raises sufficient questions or concerns that it should be removed from streamlined processing prior to the expiration of the automatic grant period. In light of the backstop provided by the Commission, we propose to conclude that expanding the applicability of the 31-day automatic grant period to include all discontinuance applications is a prudent way of reducing regulatory red tape and speeding the grant of discontinuance requests while still complying with section 214(a)'s mandate to protect the public interest. We seek comment on this proposal.
80. What are the benefits and costs of applying the 31-day automatic grant period to all domestic carriers who submit a request to discontinue service? What costs, whether in terms of money or time, does the existing requirement impose on domestic carriers who are not eligible for the 31-day automatic grant period? Is there any reason not to extend the applicability of the 31-day automatic grant period to all discontinuance applications? Does the 31-day automatic grant period allow adequate time for the Commission to review discontinuance applications? We take note of the Commission's 2016
81. We also seek comment on the length of the existing automatic grant period for non-dominant providers. Should the 31-day automatic grant period be abbreviated to a shorter time frame? As we propose to conclude that dominant and non-dominant providers be treated equally, would commenters feel the same if we were to apply a shortened automatic grant period to dominant and non-dominant providers alike? If so, what should the automatic grant period be and why? Beyond expanding the 31-day automatic grant period to apply to all discontinuance applications, we seek comment on any additional steps we might take to further streamline the automatic grant process for applications to discontinue service.
82. We seek comment on whether we should forbear from section 214(b)'s requirement that domestic discontinuance applications be filed with (1) the Governor of the state in which the discontinuance is proposed, and (2) the Secretary of Defense, and that we eliminate this same requirement from our implementing rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
83. Section 214(b) of the Act requires that upon receipt of a discontinuance application, “the Commission shall cause notice thereof to be given to, and shall cause a copy of such application to be filed with, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State (with respect to such applications involving service to foreign points), and the Governor of each State . . . in which such discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service is proposed.” Relatedly, § 63.71(a) of the Commission's rules requires that any domestic carrier seeking to discontinue service notify its customers and submit a copy of its application to the public utility commission and to the Governor of the State in which the discontinuance of service is proposed, to any federally-recognized Tribal Nations with authority over the Tribal lands in which the discontinuance is proposed, and to the Secretary of Defense via the Special Assistant for Telecommunications, as well as file an application with the Commission requesting said discontinuance. We propose to conclude that while section 214(b) directs the Commission to cause such notice to be given, that notice requirement concerns applications to discontinue telecommunications services. In that sense, our proposed forbearance, if adopted, would be forbearance from applying section 214(b) to a telecommunications service within the meaning of section 10. We seek comment on this proposed conclusion.
84.
85.
86.
87. We propose to revise § 63.63(b) to explicitly provide that a carrier may permanently discontinue a service upon filing a certification with the Commission that (1) the carrier has previously obtained emergency discontinuance authority for the service in question, (2) the service is one for which the requesting carrier has had no customers or reasonable requests for service during the 60-day period immediately preceding the permanent discontinuance, and (3) a comparable service is available in the affected service area. We seek comment on this proposal and on the processing of requests to permanently discontinue a service under § 63.63.
88. Section 63.63 of the Commission's rules sets forth procedures carriers must follow when seeking authority for an emergency discontinuance. Providers must submit an application for authority for an emergency discontinuance of service as soon as practicable but not later than 65 days following the occurrence of the conditions which occasion the discontinuance. In the case of public coast stations, notice must be given not later than 15 days following the occurrence of the conditions leading to the discontinuance. Authority is deemed granted as of the date the request is filed unless the Commission notifies the carrier otherwise on or before the 15th day after the date of filing, and our rules provide for renewal of such authority unless “the same or comparable service is reestablished before the termination of the emergency authorization” or the carrier submits an informal request for authorization to discontinue the service “for an indefinite period or permanently.”
89.
90. We seek comment on the extent to which this would affect consumers, if at all. We also seek comment on the extent to which this would allow carriers to be more deft and responsive in reacting to natural disasters and other emergencies, and to focus their rebuilding efforts on modernized rather than legacy services. Should we leave the requirement open-ended and require merely that a carrier have filed for emergency discontinuance authority at any point in the past? Why or why not? Alternatively, should we specify a particular time period during which the carrier had to have previously filed for emergency discontinuance authority? If so, what should that time period be?
91. Is the proposed 60-day period without a customer or a reasonable request for service a reasonable period of time to justify granting a carrier authority to carry out a permanent discontinuance of service? When would the 60-day period commence? Does it differ depending upon whether the permanent discontinuance request is contained in the initial emergency discontinuance application? Is 60 days sufficient to ensure that most customers are likely to have obtained substitute service, thereby obviating any resulting harm? Should the 60-day period be extended? If so, why and by how much? We note that the qualifying period for the exemption in § 63.71(g)—which governs non-emergency-related discontinuances by domestic carriers of services with no customers or reasonable requests for service—is only 30 days. In light of this, should the proposed 60-day qualifying period for § 63.63 be reduced? If so, why and by how much? We encourage commenters to be specific in their suggestions and to support their claims with as much evidence as is available.
92.
93. We seek comment on how the Commission should process requests to permanently discontinue service, either in an initial emergency discontinuance application or in a later informal request. If a carrier submits an emergency discontinuance application that also contains a request to permanently discontinue the service at issue, should we process such a request on a streamlined basis? What benefits or cost savings would there be for carriers from this combined streamlined application? If so, what should the length of that auto-grant period be, and when should it commence? Should the auto-grant period be separate from and subsequent to the 15-day auto-grant period for the emergency discontinuance request, or should it run concurrently? What types of information should such a permanent discontinuance request contain? Should the carrier be required to indicate how the request satisfies the traditional five factors the Commission considers when evaluating a non-streamlined discontinuance application?
94. We propose to eliminate a number of rules applicable to section 214(a) discontinuances that appear to be remnants of a bygone era. As discussed above, the communications marketplace has evolved significantly over the almost two decades since Congress last undertook significant revisions to the Act, and a thorough review of all of the Commission's rules pertaining to discontinuances is long overdue. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on any other revisions to our discontinuance rules warranted at this time.
95.
96. Section 63.60(f) of the Commission's rules defines the meaning of the term “public toll station” for purposes of part 63 of the Commission's rules as a public telephone station, located in a community, through which a carrier provides service to the public, and which is connected directly to a toll line operated by such carrier. Section 63.504 details the contents of an application to close a public toll station where no other such toll station of the applicant will continue service in the community and where telephone toll service is not otherwise available to the public through a telephone exchange connected with the toll lines of a carrier.
97. These rules were created more than six decades ago, at a time when public toll stations were far more prevalent, personal landlines far less prevalent, and mobile phones nonexistent. Now, with only 100,000 pay phones still remaining in America (a mere 5% of their peak of 2 million in 1999), it no longer makes sense to treat applications to discontinue this service distinctly from other types of service. We thus propose that discontinuances of public toll stations should be subject to the general provisions of § 63.71 of the Commission's rules and that we eliminate §§ 63.60(f) and 63.504 as obsolete and redundant. We seek comment on this proposal.
98.
99. Section 63.66 of the Commission's rules requires carriers to “file in quintuplicate an informal request” before closing or reducing the “hours of service at a telephone exchange at a military establishment because of deactivation of the establishment.” Authority for the closure or reduction is deemed granted on the 15th day following the filing of the request unless the Commission notifies the carrier otherwise on or before the 15th day.
100. This rule was a reflection of Congress's concern when enacting section 214 of the Act regarding “loss or impairment of service during” wartime. “Dominant carrier regulations include, among other things, requirements arising under section 214 related to transfer of control and discontinuance, cost-supported tariffing requirements, and price regulation for services falling under the Commission's jurisdiction.” Given today's modern communications marketplace and the plethora of communications services available to civilian and military establishments alike, is there any need to maintain § 63.66's requirements? When is the last time a carrier filed an informal request under § 63.66? Should we retain § 63.66, we seek comment on requiring electronic filing of the request in the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System in lieu of filing “in quintuplicate.” Is there any reason why electronic filing of such requests would be impracticable?
101.
102. Section 63.90 requires providers filing an application or information request to discontinue or reduce hours of service at a telephone exchange to “post a public notice at least 51 cm by 61 cm (20 inches by 24 inches), with letter of commensurate size, in a conspicuous place in the exchange affected, and also in the window of any such exchange having window space fronting on a public street at street level.” Providers then must post a notice in a newspaper for two weeks in the community where the telephone exchange is located. If the provider seeks to close a public toll station, it must post a public notice in a newspaper as well. Additionally, § 63.90 requires providers to file a notice and copy of its request with the State Commission of any state where discontinuance or reduction is sought. Once a carrier has completed the requisite posting, publication, and notification, § 63.90 requires the carrier report this fact to the Commission, with specific information regarding the posting, publication, and notification.
103. Section 63.90 was enacted in 1980 as a part of the Commission's effort to update domestic public message service rules. Public message services encompass the “variety of public record (or message) offerings generally involving acceptance of a message from the public, electronic transmission of the message, production of a physical hard copy, and ultimately some form of delivery to its recipient.” Due to technological developments, firms began handling public message services via telephone instead of in offices. The Commission implemented requirements to ensure adequate public notice of changes to office hours instead of requiring firms to seek Commission approval prior to altering or discontinuing hours of service.
104. With the evolution of the communications marketplace over those intervening four-plus decades, carriers and consumers alike have access to a variety of modes of communication. Indeed, the Commission in 2016 added email as an accepted means of providing notice to customers of a planned discontinuance, noting that “email is the preferred method of notice for many carriers seeking discontinuance, as well as for consumers.” Are § 63.90's requirements relevant today? When was the last time a carrier posted a public
105.
106. The Commission's rules did not set forth any specific requirements for reporting outages or service disruptions until the Commission enacted § 63.100 in 1992. The Commission enacted § 63.100 in response to widespread telephone outages, highlighting the need to monitor outages in real time. However, the requirements originally listed in § 63.100 are now found in part 4 of the Commission's rules, and § 63.100 does not contain any substantive regulations.
107. Given that § 63.100 merely directs providers to look at part 4 of the Commission's rules for the requirements pertaining to notifications of service outages, is § 63.100 still necessary? Would eliminating § 63.100 cause confusion among providers about their service outage notification obligations?
108.
109. Section 63.500 sets forth the required contents of applications to dismantle or remove a trunk line. Section 63.501 does the same for applications to sever physical connection or to terminate or suspend interchange of traffic with another carrier. These rules were adopted at a time when copper was the dominant transmission medium. That is no longer the case. Indeed, no domestic applications relying on either of these provisions have been filed for at least two decades. Given the ongoing network evolution and the constantly decreasing reliance on copper lines, we seek comment on whether separate rules governing the contents of applications addressing these two specific situations remain necessary. Do §§ 63.500 or 63.501, which pertain solely to contents of applications, retain any relevance in today's communications marketplace? If we eliminate these provisions, should we remove the references to these types of discontinuances or these specific rule sections, or both, in §§ 63.19 and 63.62 of our rules? Where fiber is the transmission medium for interconnection trunks, would elimination of these rules permit incumbent LECs to discontinue interconnection and 911 trunks without filing an application? What impact would giving incumbent LECs the ability to disconnect such trunks have on the delivery of E911 calls and the universal availability of the public switched telephone network?
110.
111. Public coast stations, part of the oldest radio service administered by the Commission, are commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers of ship/shore radiotelephone and radiotelegraph services, allowing ships along inland waterways, in coastal areas, and on the high seas to send and receive messages and to interconnect with the public switched telephone network. The Commission classified public coast stations as part of CMRS in 1994, and at the same time exercised its authority to forbear from section 214 with respect to discontinuance of service of domestic CMRS stations. The Commission did not include international CMRS in this forbearance, and thus public coast stations providing international (high seas) service are still subject to section 214, as non-dominant carriers, for the provision of new service or discontinuance of existing service.
112. In keeping with that forbearance, the Commission modified part 63 of its rules to eliminate provisions addressing impairment or discontinuance of public coast stations. While many references to public coast stations were removed, the instant rule provisions remained.
113. We tentatively conclude that these remaining provisions are no longer necessary because the only public coast stations that remain subject to section 214 and regulation under part 63 are those that provide international service. Discontinuances of international services are governed by § 63.19, which specifically provides that CMRS providers are not subject to the provisions of that section.
114. We also propose to delete the reference to “public coast stations” in § 63.63(a), applicable to emergency discontinuances. CMRS service is no longer subject to international discontinuance obligations under § 63.19, and the Commission previously forbore from discontinuance requirements for domestic CMRS service, making that reference in § 63.63(a) unnecessary and irrelevant. For the same reasons, and because it relies upon a previously eliminated rule, we also propose to delete § 63.601.
115. We also propose to eliminate references to public coast stations in the definitions in §§ 63.60(b)(1) and (2) and 63.60(c). The references in § 63.60(b)(1) and (2) appear to be unnecessary to operation of the rules now applicable to public coast stations providing international service. Moreover, the existing references can be misleading. Section 63.60(b)(1) cross-references the definition of public coast stations in § 80.5 that is simply a general description applicable to
116. We seek comment on these proposed modifications, as well as any specific suggestions of other modifications or alternatives that would enhance the clarity of the rules on impairment or discontinuance of service of public coast stations.
117. We seek general comment on any other potential revisions to our section 214 discontinuance regulations that might help facilitate the transition to next-generation networks and advanced communications services. We also seek comment on any other Federal, state, or local requirements that inhibit or impede the transition to next-generation networks and services. For example, are there any state or local requirements that would conflict with the Commission's goals of accelerating this transition by, for example, compelling carriers to continue providing legacy voice service or preventing carriers from discontinuing such service? If so, how can the Commission address such obstacles?
118. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in this document assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the document. The Commission will send a copy of the document, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the document and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
119. The document seeks to eliminate regulatory burdens in an effort to encourage providers to build, maintain, and upgrade their networks to ensure that all consumers can benefit from today's advanced communication services. Over the course of time, changes in the communications marketplace have altered how providers deliver services to consumers. To reduce regulatory burdens that hinder providers from investing in and deploying next-generation networks, we propose to eliminate all filing requirements in the Commission's network change disclosure rules by codifying the Wireline Competition Bureau's (the Bureau)
120. We next provide options for further revision of the Commission's rules implementing the discontinuance requirements imposed by section 214(a) of the Act. We propose to eliminate the requirement that a carrier seeking to grandfather a legacy service file an application with the Commission and alternatively seek comment on extending this relief to the grandfathering of any service. We also seek comment on forbearing from all discontinuance requirements for all lower-speed data telecommunications services. Further, we propose to expand the 31-day automatic grant period applicable to applications to discontinue a service for which the discontinuing carrier is non-dominant to extend to all discontinuance applications eligible for streamlined processing regardless of carrier classification. In addition, we seek comment on granting forbearance from the requirement that domestic carriers seeking to discontinue a service notify the relevant state Governor and Secretary of Defense. We also seek comment on revising the emergency discontinuance requirements under § 63.63 and requests made under that rule for permanent discontinuance. Lastly, we propose to eliminate various discontinuance rules that are outdated or redundant.
121. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4, 214(a), 251(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-54, 214(a), 251(c)(5).
122. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 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.
123.
124.
125. Additionally, according to Commission data on internet access services as of June 30, 2024, nationwide there were approximately 2,204 providers of connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction using various wireline technologies. The Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for providers of these services, therefore, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of providers that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. However, in light of the general data on fixed technology service providers in the Commission's
126.
127.
128. 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 in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in the designated entities section in Part 27 of the Commission's rules for the specific WCS frequency bands.
138. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
139.
140. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
141. The document seeks comment on proposals that we expect will reduce reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements if adopted, as small and other carriers would then be subject to fewer regulatory burdens. In the document, we first propose to eliminate all filing requirements in the Commission's network change disclosure rules. We seek comment on forbearing from all of the Commission's network change disclosure rules instead, including whether carriers should remain obligated to provide public notice of network changes or copper retirement. We then examine our rules governing the section 214(a) discontinuance process, with the goal of expediting the transition from legacy services to next-generation IP networks, as well as eliminating unnecessary burdens and costs on carriers. We propose to simplify technology discontinuance applications by consolidating existing rules governing the applications to one rule. Upon application, carriers would be able to discontinue service so long as they could certify that one of the following replacement services are available in the affected service area: (1) a facilities-based interconnected VoIP service; (2) a facilities-based mobile wireless service; (3) a voice service offered pursuant to an obligation from one of the Commission's modernized high-cost support programs; (4) a voice service deployed by the applicant in the affected area for six months, and for which the carrier has at least a certain number of existing subscribers; or (5) a widely adopted alternative voice service. We seek comment on our expectation that these four alternatives are adequate replacements for purposes of eligibility for streamlined processing. We also seek comment on two alternatives to this approach, (1) eliminating the Adequate Replacement Test and Alternative Options test and the technology transition discontinuance distinction; or (2) forbearing from discontinuance obligations.
142. Next, we seek comment on a number of ways in which we might further revise our discontinuance requirements, all of which would reduce reporting and compliance requirements for small entities. This would include eliminating the requirement that a discontinuation application show that a replacement service offers interoperability and compatibility with an enumerated list of applications and functionalities determined to be key for consumers and competitors. We also seek comment on whether to codify the waiver of rules requiring carriers to provide a “stand-alone” voice service to customers which would not require them to purchase a separate broadband service to access the voice service. We further propose to eliminate the requirement that a carrier seeking to grandfather a legacy service file a 214(a) discontinuance application and seek comment on extending this relief to all situations in which a carrier seeks to grandfather any service. We next seek comment on whether to grant forbearance from the requirement that carriers seeking to discontinue service notify the Secretary of Defense and relevant state Governor. The document also proposes to eliminate the distinction between dominant and non-dominant carriers related to discontinuance applications, expanding the 31-day automatic grant period to include any domestic carrier who submits a request to discontinue any service. Lastly, concerning reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements, we seek comment on granting forbearance to carriers the previously filed for emergency discontinuance authority under § 63.63 of the Commission's rules, where the carrier has had no customers for the service during the preceding 60 days.
143. We expect that the proposals in the document will decrease regulatory burdens on small and other carriers by eliminating many of the reporting and recordkeeping obligations mentioned above. While we do not anticipate that these carriers will need to hire professionals to comply with the proposals herein, we request comments specific to any potential burdens or costs small entities may incur in connection with these requirements.
144. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
145. The document seeks comment on proposals and alternatives that we expect will positively impact small entities. We seek comment on several alternatives to remove regulatory barriers and simplify requirements so that carriers can develop and deploy next-generation networks capable of supporting the advanced communication services available today, such as forbearing from the Commission's network change disclosure rules altogether. This would eliminate the need for small and other providers to comply with the current filing and notice requirements for a network change under the Commission's rules. Regarding technology discontinuance applications, we seek comment on the alternatives of forbearing from discontinuance obligations under section 214(a) and the Commission's rules or revising the Commission's rules through codifying relief previously granted by the Bureau to entities that sought assistance. We also propose to replace both the Adequate Replacement Test and the Alternative Options Test with one consolidated rule applicable to all technology transitions discontinuance applications, and seek comment this approach, or alternatives such as targeted revisions to these tests instead.
146. To further revise the Commission's discontinuance rules, we seek comment on the alternative of eliminating the need to file a section 214(a) discontinuance application in all situations in which a carrier intends to grandfather any service, instead of the current process which requires
147. The Commission will fully consider the economic impact on small entities as it evaluates the comments filed in response to the document, including comments related to costs and benefits. Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters will further develop the record and could help the Commission further minimize the economic impact on small entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final rules.
148. None.
149. Accordingly,
150.
Communications, Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Authority delegations (government agencies), Cable television, Communications, Communications common carriers, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 51 and 63 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-52, 271, 332 unless otherwise noted.
(a) An incumbent LEC shall provide the required notice to the public of network changes through industry fora, industry publications, or the carrier's publicly accessible internet site.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, if in response to a force majeure event, an incumbent LEC invokes its disaster recovery plan, the incumbent LEC will be exempted during the period when the plan is invoked (up to a maximum 180 days) from all advanced notice requirements under this section associated with network changes that result from or are necessitated as a direct result of the force majeure event.
(ii) As soon as practicable, during the exemption period, the incumbent LEC must continue to comply with § 51.325(a), include in its public notice the date on which the carrier invoked its disaster recovery plan, and must communicate with other directly interconnected telephone exchange service providers to ensure that such carriers are aware of any changes being made to their networks that may impact those carriers' operations.
(2)
(i) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, if in response to circumstances outside of its control other than a force majeure event addressed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an incumbent LEC cannot comply with the timing requirement set forth in paragraph (a)(1), the incumbent LEC must give notice of the network change as soon as practicable.
(ii) A short-term network change or copper retirement notice subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must include a brief explanation of the circumstances necessitating the reduced waiting period and how the incumbent LEC intends to minimize the impact of the reduced waiting period on directly interconnected telephone exchange service providers.
Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 201-205, 214, 218, 403 and 651 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless otherwise noted.
(a) With the exception of those international carriers described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, any international carrier that seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair service, including the retiring of international facilities, dismantling or removing of international trunk lines, shall be subject to the following procedures in lieu of those specified in §§ 63.61 through 63.505:
(b) The following procedures shall apply to any international carrier that the Commission has classified as dominant in the provision of a particular international service because the carrier possesses market power in the provision of that service on the U.S. end of the route. Any such carrier that seeks to retire international facilities, dismantle or remove international trunk lines, but does not discontinue, reduce or impair the dominant services being provided through these facilities, shall only be subject to the notification requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If such carrier discontinues, reduces or impairs the dominant service, or retires facilities that impair or reduce the service, the carrier shall file an application pursuant to §§ 63.62 and 63.505.
(a) For the purposes of §§ 63.60 through 63.71, the term “carrier,” when used to refer either to all telecommunications carriers or more specifically to non-dominant telecommunications carriers, shall include interconnected VoIP providers.
(b) * * *
(1) The closure by a carrier of a telephone exchange rendering interstate or foreign telephone toll service;
(2) The reduction in hours of service by a carrier at a telephone exchange rendering interstate or foreign telephone toll service; the term
(c)
(f) For the purposes of §§ 63.60 through 63.71, the term “service,” when used to refer to a real-time, two-way voice communications service, shall include interconnected VoIP service as that term is defined in § 9.3 of this chapter but shall not include any interconnected VoIP service that is a “mobile service” as defined in § 20.3 of this chapter.
Authority for the following types of discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service shall be requested by formal application containing the information required by the Commission in the appropriate sections to this part, including § 63.505, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, or in emergency cases (as defined in § 63.60(b)) as provided in § 63.63:
(a) The dismantling or removal of a trunk line for all domestic carriers and for dominant international carriers except as modified in § 63.19;
(b) The severance of physical connection or the termination or suspension of the interchange of traffic with another carrier;
(d) The closure of a public toll station where no other such toll station of the applicant in the community will continue service:
(e) Any other type of discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of telephone service not specifically provided set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section;
(a) Application for authority for emergency discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service shall be made by electronically filing an informal request through the “Submit a Non-Docketed Filing” module of the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. Such requests shall be made as soon as practicable but not later than 65 days after the occurrence of the conditions which have occasioned the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment. The request shall make reference to this section and show the following:
(b) * * * However, the Commission may, upon specific request of the carrier and upon a proper showing, contained in such informal request or in the initial application, authorize such discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service for an indefinite period or permanently; except that the carrier may permanently discontinue, reduce, or impair a service, upon the filing of a certification showing that (1) it has received authority for emergency discontinuance, reduction, or impairment; (2) it has had no customers or reasonable requests for service during the 60-day period immediately preceding the stated planned permanent discontinuance date; and (3) a comparable service is available in the affected service areas.
(a) The carrier shall notify all affected customers of the planned discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service and shall notify and submit a copy of its application to the public utility commission of the State in which the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service is proposed and to any federally-recognized Tribal Nations with authority over the Tribal lands in which the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service is proposed. A notice shall be in writing to each affected customer unless the Commission authorizes in advance, for good cause shown, another form of notice. For purposes of this section, notice by email constitutes notice in writing. The notice shall include the following:
(5) The notice shall state:
The FCC will normally authorize this proposed discontinuance of service (or reduction or impairment) unless it is shown that customers would be unable to receive service or a reasonable substitute from another carrier or that the public convenience and necessity is otherwise adversely affected. If you wish to object, you should file your comments as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the Commission releases public notice of the proposed discontinuance. You may file your comments electronically through the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System using the docket number established in the Commission's public notice for this proceeding, or you may address them to the Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554, and include in your comments a reference to the § 63.71 Application of (carrier's name). Comments should include specific information about the impact of this proposed discontinuance (or reduction or impairment) upon you or your company, including any inability to acquire reasonable substitute service.
(f)
(1) The application to discontinue, reduce, or impair service that does not constitute a technology transition or, if constituting a technology transition, meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section, shall be automatically granted on the 31st day after its filing with the Commission without any Commission notification to the applicant unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective. For purposes of this section, an application will be deemed filed on the date the Commission releases public notice of the filing.
(2) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in § 63.60(f), may be automatically granted only if the applicant certifies that at least one of the following types of services, exists throughout the affected service area:
(i) a facilities-based interconnected VoIP service, as defined in § 9.3 of this chapter;
(ii) a facilities-based mobile voice wireless service;
(iii) a voice service offered pursuant to an obligation from one of the Commission's modernized high-cost support programs;
(iv) a voice service that has been available from the applicant in the affected service area for a period of at least six months, and to which at least 50 percent of the carrier's total voice service customer base in the affected area are subscribed; or
(v) a widely adopted alternative service.
(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a carrier is not required to file an application to grandfather a legacy voice or lower-speed data telecommunications service, or an interconnected VoIP service provisioned over copper wire. For purposes of this section, a lower-speed data telecommunications service is a data telecommunications service operating at speeds below 25/3 Mbps.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) intends to request a revision of a currently approved information collection for the Refined Sugar Re-Export Program, the Sugar-Containing Products Re-Export Program, and the Polyhydric Alcohol Program.
Comments should be received on or before October 27, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
FAS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice by any of the following methods:
□
□
□
Email at:
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Kenneth Vernon, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be available without change, including any personal information provided, for inspection online at
Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of availability.
The USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, in accordance with section 3(b) and section 3(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, is transmitting the final boundary of Bautista Creek, Fuller Mill Creek, North Fork of the San Jacinto, and Palm Canyon Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers to Congress.
The Bautista Creek, Fuller Mill Creek, North Fork of the San Jacinto, and Palm Canyon Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers boundary description and map are available for review at
Information may be obtained by contacting, Carlo “Gino” San Paolo, Forest Service Regional Land Surveyor, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592, by telephone at 707-562-8963, or via email at
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at 844-433-2774. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11) of March 30, 2009, designated Bautista Creek, Fuller Mill Creek, North Fork of the San Jacinto, and Palm Canyon Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers, California, as National Wild and Scenic Rivers, to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. As specified by law, the boundary will not be effective until ninety days after Congress receives the transmittal.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the West Virginia 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 discuss matters related to the Committee's civil rights project.
Monday, September 22, 2025, from 2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
David Barreras, Designated Federal Officer, at
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 by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Sarah Villanueva at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via the file sharing website,
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Colorado Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will convene two business meetings for the purpose of debriefing the Committee's recent briefings on the topic of examining campus antisemitism at three Colorado universities and determining next steps in their project.
Wednesday, September 17, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. Mountain Time.
Wednesday, October 15, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. Mountain Time.
The meetings will be held via Zoom.
Ana Fortes, Designated Federal Official, at
Any interested member of the public may attend the meetings via the links above. Before adjourning the meetings, the committee chair will announce that any member of the public may make a brief oral statement, as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of meetings will include a list of persons who are present at meetings. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following scheduled meetings. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after each meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website:
On October 10, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Martina Juanita Gil (“Gil”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a). Specifically, Gil was convicted of smuggling one thousand (1,000) rounds of .45 caliber ammunition and two thousand (2,000) rounds of 9mm ammunition from the U.S. to Mexico. As a result of her conviction, the Court sentenced Gil to 12 months and one day of imprisonment, with credit for time served, and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Gil's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Gil to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Gil's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Gil's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Gil had an interest at the time of her conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On June 8, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Imelda Jimenez (“Jimenez”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a). Specifically, Jimenez was convicted of smuggling firearms from the U.S. to Mexico. As a result of her conviction, the Court sentenced Jimenez to 30 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Jimenez's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Jimenez to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Jimenez's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of seven years from the date of Jimenez's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Jimenez had an interest at the time of her conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such
On May 1, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Gabriel Daniel Pinnace (“Pinnace”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a). Specifically, Pinnace was convicted of smuggling firearms from the U.S. to Venezuela. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Pinnace to 72 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Pinnace's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Pinnace to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Pinnace's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Pinnace's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Pinnace had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On April 30, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Vladimir Kuznetsov (“Kuznetsov”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (“AECA”). Specifically, Kuznetsov was convicted of knowingly and willfully exporting and attempting to export from the United States to Russia without obtaining required U.S. government authorization rifle parts and accessories designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, to wit: one Accuracy International AICS AX MK II rifle chassis, one “H-S Precision” aluminum rifle stock, one “Kinetic Research Group” savage 180-Alpha rifle chassis, one Dakota bolt shroud, one Timney Sportsman trigger assembly, multiple firearm magzines, and other firearms accessories. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Kuznetsov to 46 months in prison and two years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”), the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of certain offenses, including, but not limited to, Section 38 of the AECA, may be denied for a period of up to ten (10) years from the date of his/her conviction.
BIS received notice of Kuznetsov's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA. BIS provided notice and opportunity for Kuznetsov to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”). 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Kuznetsov's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Kuznetsov's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Kuznetsov had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On August 31, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Pedro Cruz Almeida, Jr. (“Almeida”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a) (Smuggling Goods from the United States). Specifically, Almeida was convicted of smuggling nine hundred (900) rounds of Lake City .50 caliber tracer-equipped linked ammunition, from the United States to Mexico, without the required authorization from the U.S. Department of Commerce. As a result of his conviction, the court sentenced him to 50 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Almeida's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a). As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Almeida to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Almeida's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Almeida's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Almeida had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On November 30, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Gil's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Gil to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Gil's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Gil's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Gil had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On November 17, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Cesar David Piz Corona (“Corona”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a). Specifically, Corona was convicted of smuggling a Springfield Armory XDm 9mm handgun and a Beretta M9 from the United States to Mexico. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Corona to 21 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Corona's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Corona's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Corona's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Corona had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On July 17, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District Southern of New York, Maxim Marchenko (“Marchenko”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554 (Smuggling Goods from the United States). Specifically, Marchenko was convicted of unlawfully causing companies in the United States to export OLED micro-displays from the United States to Russia. Marchenko was also convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering. As a result of his convictions, the Court sentenced Marchenko to 36 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Marchenko's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Marchenko to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On March 29, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Fares Abdo Al Eyani (“Al Eyani”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 371 and Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (“AECA”). Specifically, Al Eyani was convicted of conspiring and attempting to illegally export or cause to be exported defense articles to the Sultanate of Oman, without an export license, and in knowing and willful violation of the AECA and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Al Eyani to 12 months and one day of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”), the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of certain offenses, including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 371 and Section 38 of the AECA, may be denied for a period of up to ten (10) years from the date of his/her conviction.
BIS received notice of Al Eyani's convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. 371 and Section 38 of the AECA. BIS provided notice and opportunity for Al Eyani to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”). 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Al Eyani's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of ten (10) years from the date of Al Eyani's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
On June 11, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District Southern of Texas, Jose Guadalupe Mejia (“Mejia”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a). Specifically, Mejia was convicted of attempting to export 701 rounds of assorted ammunition from the United States to Mexico, without the required authorization from the U.S. Department of Commerce. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Mejia to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Mejia's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Mejia to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Mejia's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Mejia's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Mejia had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect June 11, 2034.
On April 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Jessica Alvarado (“Alvarado”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a). Specifically, Alvarado was convicted of smuggling thirty-three 7.62x39 caliber rifles, three 5.56 caliber rifles, one Ruger .22 caliber carbine rifle, two .45 caliber pistols, and thirty-nine ammunition magazines from the U.S. to Mexico, without a license or written approval from the U.S. Department of Commerce. As a result of her conviction, the Court sentenced Alvarado to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Alvarado's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Alvarado to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Alvarado's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Alvarado's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Alvarado had an interest at the time of her conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On May 10, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Mora's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 371 and 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Mora to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Mora's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Mora's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Mora had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On December 5, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Prince Bediako (“Bediako”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554. Specifically, Bediako was convicted of smuggling fraudulently obtained vehicles from the United States to Ghana. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Bediako to 28 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Bediako's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Bediako to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Bediako's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of seven years from the date of Bediako's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Bediako had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On July 12, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Kamir Armando Brown Blanchard (“Blanchard”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554. Specifically, Blanchard was convicted of unlawfully exporting firearms from the U.S. to Panama. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Blanchard to 36 months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Blanchard's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Blanchard to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Blanchard's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Blanchard's conviction. The Office of
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On February 14, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (“Gallegos”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554 (a) (Smuggling Goods from the United States). Specifically, Gallegos was convicted of smuggling firearms from the United States to Mexico. As a result of her conviction, the court sentenced Gallegos to 60 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Gallegos's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Gallegos to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Gallegos's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Gallegos's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Gallegos had an interest at the time of her conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
On May 16, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Damian Alejandro Vidal (“Vidal”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a).
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Vidal's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Vidal to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Vidal's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of eight years from the date of Vidal's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Vidal had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On June 21, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Chrissie Fier Williams (“Williams”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554 (Smuggling Goods from the United States). Specifically, Willaims was convicted of attempting to export or send firearms, firearms parts and components, and ammunition from the United States to Trinidad & Tobago without required authorization. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Williams to 37 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Williams's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Williams to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Williams's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Williams's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Williams had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On August 6, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Miguel Barrera (“Barrera”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554 (Smuggling Goods from the United States) and 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(2) (Money Laundering). With respect to the smuggling count, specifically, Barrera was convicted of concealing and exporting from the United States, and attempting to export from the United States, firearms and firearms components, knowing that the export of such firearms and firearms components was contrary to law. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Barrera to 80 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Barrera's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Barrera to make a written submission to
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Barrera's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Barrera's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Barrera had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On November 30, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Juan Manuel Cervantes-Aceves (“Cervantes-Aceves”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a). Specifically, Cervantes-Aceves was convicted of smuggling firearms and magazines from the United States to Mexico. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Cervantes-Aceves to four years of probation.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Cervantes-Aceves's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Cervantes-Aceves to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Cervantes-Aceves's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Cervantes-Aceves's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Cervantes-Aceves had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of slag pots from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of investigation is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
Applicable August 28, 2025.
Samuel Brummitt or T.J. Worthington, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7851 or (202) 482-4567, respectively.
On April 3, 2025, Commerce published its
The products covered by this investigation are slag pots from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In the Preliminary Scope Memorandum, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (
Because the mandatory respondents in this investigation did not provide information requested by Commerce, and Commerce determined that the mandatory respondents were uncooperative, no verification was conducted.
As discussed in the
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this final determination in the
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we intend to notify the ITC of our final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of slag pots from China. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of slag pots from China no later than 45 days after our final determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded or canceled, as Commerce determines to be appropriate. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce intends to issue a countervailing duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this final determination in accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is slag pots with a nominal capacity of 65 cubic feet to 1200 cubic feet regardless of shape, form, or finish.
Slag pots are load bearing devices typically formed as a curved shell or bowl-shaped container. Slag pots are metallurgical goods typically produced either using a casting
Slag pots are included within the scope whether finished or unfinished, whether imported individually or with other subject or non-subject merchandise, or whether assembled with attachments or unassembled. Finishing includes, but is not limited to, arc washing, welding, grinding, shot blasting, heat treatment, machining, and assembly of various parts.
The country of origin for slag pots whether fully assembled, unfinished or finished, is the country where the slag pot was cast or forged. Subject merchandise includes slag pots that have been further processed or further assembled in a third country. Further processing and further assembly include, but is not limited to, arc washing, welding, grinding, shot blasting, heat treatment, painting, coating, priming, machining, and assembly of attachments.
Slag pots subject to the investigation are specified within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7309.00.0090 and 8454.20.0080. The slag pot attachments covered by the scope of this investigation may enter under HTSUS subheadings 7316.00.0000, 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7325.99.5000, and 7326.19.0080. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that polypropylene corrugated boxes (corrugated boxes) from the People's Republic of China (China) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable August 28, 2025.
Dan Alexander, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4313.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The product covered by this investigation is corrugated boxes from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences (AFA), for the China-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination,
In the
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the Scope of the Investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce has offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rate. Any such adjusted rates may be found in the “Preliminary Determination” section's chart of estimated weighted-average dumping margins above.
Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting cash deposits at a rate equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated in this preliminary determination unadjusted for the passed-through domestic subsidies or for export subsidies at the time the CVD provisional measures expire.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the
Because no company responded to Commerce's quantity and value questionnaire, we were unable to select mandatory respondents. Therefore, verification will not be conducted.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number, (2) the number of participants, and whether any participant is a foreign national, and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined.
Section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1) provide that Commerce will issue the final determination within 75 days after the date of its preliminary determination. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 75 days after the signature date of this preliminary determination.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is polypropylene corrugated boxes. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are boxes, bins, totes, or other load-bearing containers made for holding goods, that are made of corrugated polypropylene sheets, also known as polypropylene hollow core sheets, polypropylene fluted sheets, polypropylene twin wall sheets, or multi wall sheets. Such polypropylene sheets are “corrugated,” “fluted,” or “hollow core,” meaning the inside of the sheet contains channels or pockets of air which make the sheets lightweight, while retaining strength and durability. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are typically produced from a plastic resin consisting of 50 percent or more polypropylene. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are covered by the scope irrespective of the particular mix of polypropylene homo-polymer, polypropylene co-polymer, recycled or virgin polypropylene, or ancillary chemicals such as electrostatic agents or flame retardants. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are formed by corrugated polypropylene sheets cut to length, die-cut into specific box shapes, and may be cut or scored to allow each side of the box to be folded into shape. Polypropylene corrugated boxes may include a tab or attached portion of polypropylene corrugated sheet (commonly referred to as a “manufacturer's joint”) that has been cut, slotted, or scored to facilitate the formation of the box by stapling, gluing, welding, or taping the sides together to form a tight seal. One-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are die-cut or otherwise formed so that the top, bottom, and sides form a single, contiguous unit. Two-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are those with a folded bottom and a folded top as separate pieces. Multi-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are those with separate bottoms and tops that are fitted to a single folded piece comprising the sides of the box. Polypropylene corrugated boxes may be printed with ink or digital designs.
The subject merchandise includes polypropylene corrugated boxes with or without handles, with or without lids or tops, with or without reinforcing wire, whether in a one-piece, two-piece, or multi-piece configuration, and whether folded into shape or in an unfolded form. The subject merchandise includes all polypropylene corrugated boxes regardless of size, shape, or dimension. The subject merchandise also includes polypropylene corrugated box lids or tops when imported separately from polypropylene corrugated boxes.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 3923.10.9000. Although the HTSUS statistical reporting number is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that slag pots from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is April 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024.
Applicable August 28, 2025.
George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167.
On June 17, 2025, Commerce published its
The products covered by this investigation are slag pots from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In the Preliminary Scope Memorandum, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (
Because no companies in this investigation demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate, Commerce determined that all companies are part of the China-wide entity; therefore, no verification was conducted.
Consistent with the
In the
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce applied AFA to the China-wide entity in this investigation, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the petition, there are no calculations to disclose.
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, as described in the appendix to this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 17, 2025, which is the date of publication of the affirmative
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties for appropriate entries. Commerce will instruct CBP to require the following cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties for all appropriate entries: (1) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise, the cash deposit will be equal to the estimated dumping margin established for the China-wide entity; and (2) for all third-country exporters of merchandise under consideration, the cash deposit rate is also the cash deposit rate applicable to the China-wide entity. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce has offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate export subsidy rate. Any such adjusted cash deposit rate may be found in the “Final Determination” section above. However, the suspension of liquidation of provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation has been discontinued.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we intend to notify the ITC of our final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of slag pots from China no later than 45 days after this final determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded or canceled, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an AD duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, AD duties on
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this final determination in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is slag pots with a nominal capacity of 65 cubic feet to 1200 cubic feet regardless of shape, form, or finish.
Slag pots are load bearing devices typically formed as a curved shell or bowl-shaped container. Slag pots are metallurgical goods typically produced either using a casting process or a fabrication process (
Slag pots are included within the scope whether finished or unfinished, whether imported individually or with other subject or non-subject merchandise, or whether assembled with attachments or unassembled. Finishing includes, but is not limited to, arc washing, welding, grinding, shot blasting, heat treatment, machining, and assembly of various parts.
The country of origin for slag pots whether fully assembled, unfinished or finished, is the country where the slag pot was cast or forged. Subject merchandise includes slag pots that have been further processed or further assembled in a third country. Further processing and further assembly include, but is not limited to, arc washing, welding, grinding, shot blasting, heat treatment, painting, coating, priming, machining, and assembly of attachments.
Slag pots subject to the investigation are specified within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7309.00.0090 and 8454.20.0080. The slag pot attachments covered by the scope of this investigation may enter under HTSUS subheadings 7316.00.0000, 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7325.99.5000, and 7326.19.0080. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain magnesia carbon bricks (bricks) from the People's Republic China (China), covering the period of review (POR) September 1, 2023, though August 31, 2024, because, as explained below, there are no reviewable suspended entries for the companies subject to this review.
Applicable August 28, 2025.
Nathan James, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5305.
On September 3, 2024, Commerce published in the
On October 17, 2024, Commerce published in the
On July 8, 2025, Commerce issued a notice of intent to rescind the 2023-2024 administrative review and invited interested parties to comment.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an AD order when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
As Commerce has proceeded to a final rescission of this administrative review, no cash deposit rates will change. Accordingly, the current cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in the United States, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of the APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on quartz surface products from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable August 28, 2025.
David DeFalco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2178.
On June 22, 2020, Commerce published the
On June 2, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), domestic interested parties filed a timely and adequate substantive response.
The product covered by these
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of web conference.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Partial Coverage Fishery Monitoring Advisory Committee (PCFMAC) and Fishery Monitoring Advisory Committee (FMAC) will meet jointly on September 10, 2025.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Alaska time.
Join the meeting online through the link at
Sara Cleaver, Council staff; email:
The September 2025 PCFMAC/FMAC agenda will include (a) updates since the last PCFMAC meeting; (b) review of the draft 2026 Annual Deployment Plan; (c) review of NFWF (National Fish and Wildlife Foundation) EM (electronic monitoring) proposals, and (d) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smartphone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to posted at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS announces a public meeting of the Permanent Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) from October 6, 2025 through October 8, 2025. Meeting topics are provided under the
The meeting of the PAC will be held, via web conference, from October 6 through October 8, 2025, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST) each day or until business is concluded. Members of the public may submit written comments on meeting topics or materials, at least 2 weeks before the meeting (submission by September 22, 2025), if wanting the comment to be part of meeting materials and to be reviewed by PAC members and U.S. Commissioners ahead of the meeting; public comment is also accepted during the meeting. An Executive Session, closed to the public, may be called during the PAC meeting if confidential subject matter arises or is requested by the PAC. Confidential matters can include U.S. negotiating positions, strategy, litigation, and internal operational issues related to international meetings. A placeholder for an Executive Session is placed on the agenda to accommodate this possibility.
The public meeting will be conducted via web conference. For details on how to call in to the web conference or to submit comments, please contact Katrina Poremba, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-725-5096; email:
Katrina Poremba, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; telephone: 808-725-5096; email:
In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
The purpose of the October 6 through October 8, 2025 meeting is to discuss U.S. objectives leading up to WCPFC22 and its Subsidiary Body Meetings. There will also be an opportunity for the U.S. Participating Territories (American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI) to present their priority issues to the U.S. Commissioners.
The web conference is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Katrina Poremba at 808-725-5096 by September 29, 2025.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of a permit.
Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D.; at (301) 427-8401.
The requested permit has been issued under the MMPA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Habitat Joint Committee and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This meeting will be held in-person with a webinar option. Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This webinar will be held on Thursday, September 11, 2025, at 9 a.m. Webinar registration URL information:
This meeting will be held at Four Points by Sheraton, One Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01880; Phone (781) 245-9300.
Cate O'Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Habitat Committee and Advisory Panel will meet jointly to review the draft 2025 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Framework including EFH designation alternatives and identify a preferred alternative for Council consideration at the September 23-25 meeting. They will receive a demonstration of the New England Sensitive Habitat Viewer Story Map, developed by the NOAA's Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office Habitat and Ecosystem Services Division. The group will also discuss the ongoing 3-year review of the Stellwagen and Georges Bank Dedicated Habitat Research Areas. They plan to receive updates on ocean planning activities and consider potential next steps for Council work. They will also receive an update on the Offshore Wind Regional Fund Administrator Compensation Process. Also on the agenda is discussion on EFH-related work that could be completed following completion of the 2025 framework, including next steps identified during the EFH Technical Review. Other business will be discussed, if necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
DOE invites public comments on the proposed three-year extension, with changes, to the Form GC-859
DOE must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than October 27, 2025. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting comments by the deadline, contact the person listed in
You may submit comments, identified by OMB control number 1901-0287, by email at
If you need additional information, contact Kenneth Pick, EIA Clearance Officer, at (202) 586-5562. The current and proposed Form GC-859 and instructions are available on EIA's website at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Form GC-859
Data collected from the survey are utilized by personnel from DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM), and the national laboratories to meet their research objectives of developing a range of options and supporting analyses that facilitate informed choices about how best to manage spent nuclear fuel (SNF);
(4a)
• Clarified instructions, definitions, and tables based on the feedback received from the last survey collection. This lessens the burden on respondents by avoiding unnecessary clarifications.
• Section B.2: Reactor License Data. Section B.2 is being discontinued because the license status and other data is publicly available on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website. Section B.2 now indicates “Discontinued” to preserve the subsection numbering in Section B.
• Section C.1.1: Data on Discharged Fuel Assemblies and Non-Fuel Components Integral to the Assembly—Addition of an optional data field for Assembly-Average Initial Enrichment. The form currently includes a data field only for Maximum Planar-Average Initial Enrichment. Assembly-Average Initial Enrichment is critical for evaluating decay heat and dose rates, while Maximum Planar-Average Initial Enrichment accounts for axial and radial variations in enrichment, essential for criticality safety assessments. Having data for both enrichment values available reduces conservatism and uncertainty in assessing the transportability of transportation packages, providing DOE with the information necessary for effective planning of future spent nuclear fuel transport and storage while maintaining compliance with thermal, radiological, and criticality safety
• Reinstating Section C.2: Projected Assembly Discharges. DOE paused collection of projected assembly discharge data in Section C.2 starting with the survey covering the July 1, 2013—December 31, 2017, period. However, reinstating this section is now necessary to provide insight on planned changes in reactor operations, particularly power uprates and the introduction of high-assay low-enriched uranium fuel. These developments will directly impact spent fuel characteristics, including enrichment levels and burnup rates. By collecting data on projected assembly discharges, DOE can ensure that it has the necessary information to manage and plan spent fuel storage, disposal strategies, and infrastructure investments in light of these anticipated changes. Section C.2 includes improvements for clarity of data requested.
• Non-Fuel Components (NFC). The 3 NFC columns in Table C.1.1 will be removed (NFC, NFC Identifier, and Estimated Total Weight) and added to the D.3.3 (Assemblies in Dry Storage) table. The NFC stored in the pool is already captured in Section E: Non-Fuel Data and the text was modified in E.2: Non-Fuel Components—Integral to an Assembly. This change was made to simplify the reporting of non-fuel components in the spent fuel pool. For these components, DOE does not require tracking of their current location in the spent fuel pool, only the tentative amount of hardware delivered to DOE. This reduces the burden on respondents by not requiring them to track and report the location of hardware components in the pool.
• D.3.3: Assemblies in Dry Storage. An additional column for Damaged Fuel Canister (DFC) will be added to the D.3.3 table. This eases the burden on respondents because this change improves clarity by avoiding confusion between a single assembly canister in section C.3.1 and a DFC reported in D.3.3. Additionally, it enhances clarity during canister unloading, ensuring it is clear which assemblies are damaged and whether additional hardware is present in the cask. This information is also used to verify compliance with the Certificate of Compliance when accepting the cask for transportation.
• Appendix C: Reactor and Spent Fuel Storage Site Identification Codes. Appendix C has been updated to remove numeric ID numbers for reactors or storage locations. These have been replaced with easily recognizable names, consistent with the choices in the web-application. Pools that no longer exist or that are no longer planned for storage have been removed from the list. Appendix C has been renamed to Reactor or Facility and Spent Fuel Storage Site. The form has been revised to remove references to numeric IDs, so the form now contains only user friendly, easily recognizable names.
• Appendix E: Fuel Assembly Type Codes. Appendix E has been modified to include codes submitted on the 2023 data collection that were not already on the list and to remove codes that are not in use, for the convenience of the respondents.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) DOE's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) DOE can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) DOE can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
EIA invites public comment on the proposed three-year extension, with changes, to the Electric Power Surveys (EPS), as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. EPS consists of ten surveys, including annual, monthly and one daily survey. These surveys collect data from entities involved in the production, transmission, delivery, and sale of electricity, and in maintaining the reliable operation of the power system. The data collected are the primary source of information on the nation's electric power system.
EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than October 27, 2025. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the person listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by OMB control number 1905-0129, by email
Kenneth Pick, EIA Clearance Officer, at (202) 586-5562. The forms and instructions are available at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Form EIA-860
Form EIA-860M
Form EIA-861
Form EIA-861S
Form EIA-861M
Form EIA-923A
Form EIA-923M
Form EIA-923S Supplemental
Form EIA-930
Form EIA-930A
(4a)
EIA proposes to discontinue Form EIA-63B, Photovoltaic Module Shipments Report. EIA has determined that the value of the data collected by the survey no longer exceeds the burden of collecting and publishing it.
EIA is proposing to make changes to the frame size for the EIA-860A, EIA-860M, EIA-923A, and EIA-923M to ensure that all new generating units are accounted for. These frame size changes and resulting increases in the estimates for the number of respondents, number of total responses, and number of burden hours are reflected in the below annual estimates values.
(5)
Form EIA-860A (without schedule 6) is estimated to have 6,700 respondents;
Form EIA-860A (with schedule 6) is estimated to have 811 respondents;
Form EIA-860M is estimated to have 508 respondents;
Form EIA-861A is estimated to have 1,735 respondents;
Form EIA-861S is estimated to have 1,692 respondents;
Form EIA-861M is estimated to have 650 respondents;
Form EIA-923A is estimated to have 11,142 respondents;
Form EIA-923S is estimated to have 2,946 respondents;
Form EIA-923M is estimated to have 3,579 respondents;
Form EIA-930 is estimated to have 63 respondents;
Form EIA-930A is estimated to have 63 respondents;
Pretesting has 100 respondents;
(6)
(7)
(8)
Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) EIA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) EIA can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
On June 24, 2025, Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. filed a temporary variance request for its seasonal turbine venting period for the Parr Hydroelectric Project No. 1894. The project is located on the Broad River in Newberry and Fairfield counties, South Carolina. The project occupies federal lands.
The licensee requests Commission approval to extend the seasonal turbine venting period specified in the project's Turbine Venting Plan (Plan) through October 31, 2025. The Plan requires the licensee to provide turbine venting annually between June 15 and August 31 to increase dissolved oxygen levels downstream of Parr Shoals Dam. Article 401(b) of the project license requires the licensee to obtain Commission approval for extensions exceeding 30 days.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members, and others to access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Joy Kurtz at 202-502-6760 or
On December 31, 2024, Moon Lake Electric Association, Inc. (licensee) filed an application to surrender its license for the Uintah Hydroelectric Project No. 190. The project is located on the Uinta River, Pole Creek, and Big Springs, near the town of Neola, Duchesne County, Utah. The project occupies lands of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service's Ashley National Forest.
The licensee proposes to remove certain project features while leaving others in place. The retained project features will then be transferred to the Ute Indian Tribe. Project features to be removed include the scour protection weir which traverses the Uinta River; the elevated pipeline that supplies water to the main canal; the Pole Creek diversion structure; the substation; and two operator houses. Features to be retained include: the main canal heading structure and main canal, the Big Springs diversion structure (and access road); the project forebay, the powerhouse; and garage. The transmission line that provides electricity to legacy cabins and the nearby Ute Fish Hatchery will be retained under the licensee's proposal. On February 27, 2025, the Commission issued a public notice for the proposed surrender, accepted the application for filing, and solicited comments, motions to intervene, and protests. Several filings were made in response to the Commission's notice.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members, and others to access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Diana Shannon at 202-502-6136 or
On July 17, 2025, Idaho Power Company (licensee) filed as-built Exhibit F drawings to reflect the re-built Oxbow fish hatchery
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,
1. On January 15, 2025, pursuant to 18 CFR 4.106(i), Albany Engineering Corporation, on behalf of Valley Falls Associates, the transferee for the 2,500-kilowatt James Thompson Hydroelectric Project No. 6411, filed a letter notifying the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) that the exemption was transferred from Valley Falls Associates to Albany Engineering Corporation. The James Thompson Hydroelectric Project No. 6411 was originally issued an exemption on March 5, 1984.
2. Albany Engineering Corporation is now the exemptee of the James Thompson Hydroelectric Project No. 6411. All correspondence regarding the project should be directed to Wendy Jo Carey, Albany Engineering Corporation, 5 Washington Square, Albany, NY 12205, Email:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On June 22, 2023, and supplemented on January 24, 2024, and June 20, 2025, Sugar River Hydro II, LLC, licensee, filed an application for surrender of its license for the Sugar River II Hydroelectric Project No. 10934. The project is located on the Sugar River in Sullivan County, New Hampshire. The project does not occupy federal lands.
To surrender the project, the licensee proposes to disconnect all generator leads, remove all transformers and other project electrical equipment, remove all hydraulic and governor fluids and reservoirs, remove project related operating equipment and monitors, such as impoundment sensors, from the dam, and secure the powerhouse. Additionally, the licensee plans to close the penstock at its intake, and intends to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Dam Bureau to develop the formal penstock closure plan. The dam and its gates would remain in place, including the emergency backup system with a dedicated generator. The licensee does not anticipate any new ground disturbance activity while securing the powerhouse, and closing the penstock intake.
On July 2, 2025, the Commission issued a public notice for the surrender application. The public comment period closed on August 1, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the Connecticut River Conservancy filed comments to express
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members, and others to access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Aneela Mousam, (202) 502-8357 or
On October 9, 2024, Loup River Public Power District (licensee) filed an application to amend its license for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project No. 1256. The project is located on the Loup River in Nance and Platte counties, Nebraska. The project does not occupy federal lands.
The licensee proposes to amend its minimum flow and operating requirements pursuant to Articles 404 and 405 of the license. On April 2, 2025, the Commission issued a public notice for the proposed amendment of license, accepted the application for filing, and solicited comments, motions to intervene, and protests. No comments were filed in response to the Commission's notice.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members, and others to access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Diana Shannon at 202-502-6136 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings and Accounting Request filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
m.
n.
o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
p.
q.
r. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members, and others access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petition.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an order dated July 10, 2025, denying a petition dated December 20, 2024, from Kentucky Resources Council, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and Kentucky Conservation Committee (Petitioners). The petition requested that EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit proposed by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) to Tennessee Valley Authority, Shawnee Fossil Plant (Shawnee Plant) for its facility located in McCracken County, Kentucky.
Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 4, (404) 562-9115,
EPA received a petition from Petitioners dated December 20, 2024, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. V-23-006, proposed by KDAQ to Shawnee Plant in McCracken County, Kentucky. On July 10, 2025, the EPA Administrator issued an order denying the petition. The order itself explains the basis for EPA's decision. Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than October 27, 2025.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing a specific exemption request from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to use the pesticide ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA, CAS No. 643-79-8) to treat the coolant fluid of the internal active thermal control system (IATCS) of the International Space Station (ISS) to control aerobic/microaerophilic bacteria in the aqueous coolant. The applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been registered by EPA. Therefore, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, EPA is soliciting public comment before making the decision whether to grant the exemption.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0758, is available online at
Charles Smith, Director, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-2875; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a pesticide manufacturer involved with the International Space Station. The following North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. One potentially affected entity may include Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). Other types of entities not listed could also be affected.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. EPA implementing regulations are set forth in 40 CFR part 166.
EPA is announcing receipt of a request submitted to EPA under FIFRA section 18. This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption
NASA has requested that EPA issue a specific exemption for the use of OPA in the coolant of the internal active thermal control system (IATCS) of the ISS to control aerobic/microaerophilic bacteria in the aqueous coolant. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 (
As part of this request, the applicant asserts that it has considered the registered biocide alternatives and concluded that OPA is the most effective biocide that meets the requisite criteria including: The need for safe, non-intrusive implementation and operation in a functioning system; the ability to control existing planktonic and biofilm-residing microorganisms; a negligible impact on system wetted materials of construction; and a negligible reactivity with existing coolant additives. Without the use of OPA, the ISS would not have an adequate long-term solution for controlling these microorganisms in the IATCS coolant.
The OPA is incorporated into a porous resin material contained in a stainless-steel canister. The canister containing the OPA-incorporated resin is inserted into a coolant system loop, using flexible hose and quick disconnects, and is placed in line for 8 hours to deliver the OPA into the fluid. As the coolant fluid flows through the cannister, the OPA elutes from the resin material into the coolant fluid. The total volume of the circulatory loops of the IATCS is 829 liters. The maximum concentration would be 350 milligrams (mg) of OPA per liter of coolant fluid. A total of 290, 150 mg would be needed for the entire system. The OPA is incorporated into the resin at 210 mg of OPA per cm
EPA has authorized similar emergency exemptions for this use since 2011. With the decision to extend the mission of the ISS to 2030, the need for this use is expected to continue for the duration of the program.
This notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application. The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by NASA.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the Act), notice is given of a proposed consent decree in
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by September 29, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2025-0754, online at
Karen Bianco, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; telephone: (202) 564-3298; email address:
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2025-0754) 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
The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines of October 31, 2025, and February 3, 2026, for the EPA to sign notices of final rule that fulfill the EPA's obligations under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(A), with respect to the Mariposa County, California, and Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona 2015 ozone Moderate nonattainment areas, respectively. The proposed consent decree would also require the EPA to send notice of each action to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication in the
In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of thirty (30) days
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2025-0754 via
If you submit an electronic comment, the 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 the EPA to contact you in case the 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 the EPA's electronic public docket. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
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.” The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the Act), notice is given of a proposed consent decree in
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by September 29, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2025-1346, online at
Karen Bianco, Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; telephone (202) 564-3298; email address
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2025-1346) 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
On September 6, 2022, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a request for EPA to redesignate the Area to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to approve a State Implementation Plan revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to approve or deny the request to redesignate the Area to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The proposed consent decree would require the appropriate EPA official to sign a final rule to approve or deny Kentucky's request by no later than December 8, 2025. EPA would be required to provide Plaintiffs with notice and a copy of the final rule within three business days after the official's signature. The proposed consent decree would also require EPA to transmit the final rule to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication in the
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.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2025-1346, via
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
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.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal), (EPA ICR Number 2205.23, OMB Control Number 2090-0028) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed renewal of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 10, 2025. This notice allows for 60 days for public comments.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 27, 2025.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number HQ-OA-2025-0172, to EPA online using
Chris Moore, Office of Policy (MC1809T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-2348; email address:
This is a proposed renewal of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 10, 2025. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate forms of information technology. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another
The information collected in the focus groups will be used primarily to develop and improve economics-related surveys. To the extent that these surveys are ultimately approved and successfully administered, they will serve to expand the Agency's understanding of benefits and costs of a variety of actions and could provide the means to quantitatively assess the effects of others. Participation in the focus groups will be voluntary and the identity of the participants will be kept confidential.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Labeling Requirements for Certain Minimum Risk Pesticides Under FIFRA Section 25(b) (EPA ICR Number 2475.05 and OMB Control Number 2070-0187) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is approved through August 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before September 29, 2025.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0536 to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Carolyn Siu, Office of Program Support (Mail Code 7602M), Office of Chemical
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 30, 2025. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Public comments were previously requested via the
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 27, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Licensees use FCC Form 606 to associate their FCC Registration Number (FRN) with their Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety Homeland Security Bureau call signs and antenna structure registration numbers. The form must be submitted before filing any subsequent applications associated with the existing license or antenna structure registration that is not associated with an FRN. The information collected in the FCC Form 606 is used to populate the Universal Licensing System (ULS) with the FRNs of licensees and antenna structure registration owners who interact with ULS.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 27, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than September 29, 2025.
A.
1.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Technology Transformation Services (TTS), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the GSA is proposing a revision to an existing information collection request (ICR) for the Data Collection Form (SF-SAC) and associated FAC webform. The revisions add an optional resubmission pathway and optional structured fields within audit findings (questioned costs, criteria, condition, cause, effect, recommendation, response), as well as new Yes/No webform fields for auditor disclosures of known fraud, likely fraud, summary schedule of prior audit findings, and significant instances of abuse, consistent with 2 CFR 200.516(b)(5)-(7).
Submit comments on or before October 27, 2025.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0330; Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) to:
Lynn Houston, Technology and Transformation Services Division, Federal Acquisition Service, GSA, at 845-594-1761 or
The SF-SAC form is used to collect information required under the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200, subpart F). Auditees that expend $750,000 or more in Federal awards in a fiscal year must submit the SF-SAC along with their Single Audit reporting package to the FAC.
This proposed revision includes:
1. An optional resubmission pathway, with fields for resubmission type, reason, and report ID.
2. Optional structured fields within each audit finding to capture questioned costs (known and likely), criteria, condition, cause, effect, recommendation, and response. These elements are typically included in narrative text; this change allows, but does not require, auditors to enter them in separate fields for improved clarity and data usability.
3. New Yes/No fields in the FAC webform to capture audit-level disclosures of known fraud, likely fraud, whether a summary schedule of prior audit findings is included, and whether significant instances of abuse are disclosed, consistent with 2 CFR 200.516(b)(5)-(7).
Public comments are invited on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of GSA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of GSA's estimate of the burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated techniques or other information technology. All comments received will be reviewed and considered.
Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a revision of an information collection requirement regarding the Art-in-Architecture (AIA) Program Center for Fine Arts, GSA Form 7437.
Submit comments on or before September 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Ms. Jennifer Gibson, Office of Architecture and Engineering, Center for Fine Arts (PA0D), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, at telephone 202-253-3020 or via email at
The AIA Program actively seeks to commission works from American artists for public buildings. The GSA Form 7437, Art in Architecture Program National Artist Registry, will be used to collect information from artists across the country to participate and to be considered for commissions.
The AIA Program is the result of a policy decision made in January 1963 by GSA Administrator Bernard L. Boudin, who served on the Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Office Space in 1961-1962.
The program has been modified over the years, most recently in 2022, to align with Executive Order (E.O.)14029 issued on May 14, 2021 “Revocation of Certain Presidential Actions and Technical Amendment,” and to support E.O. 13985 issued January 2021, titled “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. E.O. 14029 revoked E.O. 13934 issued July 3, 2020, “Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes.” E.O. 14189 of January 29, 2025 “Celebrating America's 250th Birthday,” revoked E.O. 14129 and reinstates E.O. 13934. As mandated by E.O. 13934, the AIA program must prioritize the commissioning of artworks that portray historically significant Americans or events of American historical significance, or that illustrate the ideals upon which the Nation was founded. Priority is to be given to public-facing monuments to former Presidents of the United States, and to individuals and events relating to the discovery of America, the founding of the United States, and the abolition of slavery. Such works of art are to be designed to be appreciated by the general public and by those who use and interact with Federal buildings. When an artwork commissioned by GSA is meant to depict a historically significant American, the artwork is required to be a lifelike or realistic representation of that person, not an abstract or modernist representation.
With the implementation of the 2025 policy, the AIA program seeks to commission works from the American artists that “portray historically significant Americans or events of American historical significance or illustrate the ideals upon which our nation was founded.” In support of the AIA program's goal to commission the most talented contemporary American artists to create works for the nation's important new civic buildings, it is necessary to identify those artists. The National Artist Registry (Registry) offers the opportunity for artists across the country to participate and to be considered for commissions.
In accordance with E.O. 14168 “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” and E.O. 14148 “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” issued on January 20, 2025, the optional demographic and gender information on form GSA 7437 will no longer be collected.
A 60-day notice was published in the
General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; request for comment.
GSA has, under OMB review, the following proposed Information Collection Request “Improving Customer Experience (OMB Circular A-11, Section 280 Implementation)” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Submit comments on or before September 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Nicole Bynum, Regulatory Program Specialist, at 202-501-4755, or email to
A.
The General Services Administration (hereafter “the Agency”) has developed a survey collection tool (
An agency using the Touchpoints survey tool will only submit collections if they meet the following criteria.
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial, meaning they do not raise issues that warrant public comment;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and the agency will comply with applicable legal and policy requirements to ensure its protection;
• Information gathered is intended to be used for general service improvement and program management purposes;
• The agency will follow the procedures specified in any relevant OMB guidance for the required reporting to OMB of data from surveys;
• Outside of the reporting mentioned in the bullet immediately above, if the agency intends to release journey maps, user personas, reports, or other data-related summaries stemming from this collection, the agency must include appropriate caveats around those summaries, noting that conclusions should not be generalized beyond the sample, considering the sample size and response rates. The agency must submit the data summary itself (
B.
C.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by September 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
The information collection requirements (ICRs) described herein are needed to implement the Medicare Conditions of Participation (CoPs) for Medicare-participating hospices. The CoPs help assure an adequate level of patient health and safety in participating hospices and help ensure that Medicare hospice eligibility requirements are being met. CMS originally published the Hospice Conditions of Participation on June 5, 2008 (hereinafter “2008 Final Rule”). The regulations containing the information collection requirements are located at 42 CFR part 418 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Subparts B, C and D.
This is a reinstatement of the information collection request that expired on March 31, 2024. The previous iteration of this OMB Control Number: 0938-1067 (approved March 23, 2021) had an annual burden of 3,639,215 hours and annual costs of $273,001,454. For this requested reinstatement, with changes, the total annual burden hours for industry is 4,032,329 hours and the annual burden costs are $350,449,922. The 10.8% increase in hours is primarily due to the increase in the number of hospices since the last iteration.
Since the last reinstatement was approved in March 2021, CMS revised one of the hospice CoPs at 42 CFR 418.76 in the proposed rule,
In November 2021, CMS required hospices to develop policies and procedures as a CoP to ensure all staff were fully vaccinated and the burden requirements were detailed in OMB Control Number: 0938-0266. However, CMS removed this requirement and related burden for hospices (and other facilities) in June 2023.
2.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing year four of the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) Development and Readiness Pilot (CDRP). This program facilitates the expedited CMC development of products under an investigational new drug application (IND) based on the anticipated clinical benefit of earlier
Starting October 1, 2025, FDA will accept requests to participate in year four of the CDRP program. See the “Participation” section of this document for eligibility criteria, instructions on how to submit a request to participate, and selection criteria and process.
Tanya Clayton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4506, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0871; or Phillip Kurs, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 240-402-7911.
Development programs for CBER- and CDER-regulated drugs and biologics intended to diagnose, treat, or prevent a serious disease or condition where there is an unmet medical need may have accelerated clinical development timelines. Yet, marketing applications for products in expedited development programs still need to meet FDA's approval standards, including manufacturing facility compliance with current good manufacturing practice (CGMP). Products with accelerated clinical development activities may face challenges in expediting CMC development activities to align with the accelerated clinical timelines. Successfully expediting CMC readiness may require additional interactions with FDA during product development and, if applicable, warrant the use of science- and risk-based regulatory approaches to streamline CMC development activities so that clinical benefits of earlier patient access to these products can be realized.
As described in the FDA Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VII Commitment Letter for fiscal years (FYs) 2023 Through 2027 (Ref. 1), FDA implemented the CDRP program to facilitate CMC readiness for selected CBER- and CDER-regulated products with accelerated clinical development timelines in FY 2023. To accelerate CMC development and facilitate CMC readiness, the pilot features increased communication between FDA and sponsors and explores the use of science- and risk-based regulatory approaches, such as those described in the FDA guidance for industry entitled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics” (May 2014) (Ref. 2), as applicable.
FDA (CBER and CDER) is continuing to administer the CDRP to facilitate the CMC development of selected products under INDs which have expedited clinical development timeframes, based on the anticipated clinical benefits of earlier patient access to the products. For sponsors participating in the pilot, FDA will provide product-specific CMC advice during product development, including two additional CMC-focused Type B meetings, as well as additional CMC-focused discussions. To support these interactions, once a sponsor is admitted to the pilot, FDA will expand the IND quality assessment team so as to ensure it has representation from the full complement of relevant disciplines. The increased communication between FDA review staff and sponsors is intended to ensure a mutual understanding of approaches to completing CMC activities, including what information should be provided at the appropriate timepoint (
FDA will accept requests to participate in the CDRP program continuously throughout the fiscal year. FDA will select no more than nine proposals per fiscal year, with approximately two-thirds being CBER-regulated products and one-third CDER-regulated products. FDA will renew the CDRP program each fiscal year and announce the opening of the pilot program in the
To promote innovation and understanding in this area, FDA will hold a public workshop on September 10, 2025 and issue a strategy document focused on CMC aspects of expedited development incorporating lessons from the CDRP. At the workshop, sponsors may be asked to present lessons learned from the pilot. FDA may also present summary lessons and case studies. Generally, FDA does not anticipate that the case studies will need to include information, such as the sponsor's name, that can identify a unique product or product-specific manufacturing process information. Case studies will focus on FDA-sponsor interactions and problem solving, and address scientific and technical issues only in general terms. However, as described in the FDA PDUFA VII Commitment Letter for FYs 2023 Through 2027, to be eligible for the pilot, the sponsor must reach agreement with FDA on the information that could be publicly disclosed. FDA will notify a sponsor in advance when it plans to include some aspect of their experience in the program in a public discussion (
The following eligibility criteria apply for consideration for participation in the pilot program:
• An active commercial IND (see the definition of commercial IND at
• IND has been submitted in, or converted to, Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) format, unless the IND is of a type granted a waiver from eCTD format as per FDA's guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Certain Human Pharmaceutical Product Applications and Related Submissions Using the eCTD Specifications” (September 2024) (Ref. 3).
• INDs for combination products (21 CFR 3.2(e)) are eligible; products that require significant cross-Center interactions (
• In general, there should be enough time remaining before submission of the marketing application to allow the pilot to have an impact on CMC readiness.
• CMC-related information is provided to demonstrate a commitment to pursue a CMC development plan that aligns with the expedited clinical development program (see “CMC Development Plan” in section II.B of this document for details).
Due to the differences in product complexity between CBER- and CDER-regulated products, the following eligibility and selection criteria differ between the Centers.
• IND is an existing, CBER-regulated IND intended for submission as an application for licensure of a biological product under section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(a)) for cellular therapies, gene therapies, and other products regulated by the Office of Therapeutic Products/CBER or vaccines regulated by the Office of Vaccines Research and Review/CBER.
• IND has a Breakthrough Therapy (BT) or Regenerative Medicine Advance Therapy (RMAT) designation.
• IND is an existing, CDER-regulated IND for a product intended for submission as an application for: (1) approval of a new drug submitted under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)), or (2) licensure of a biological product under section 351(a) of the PHS Act.
• IND has an expedited clinical timeframe warranted based on anticipated clinical benefits of earlier patient access. This would include INDs with BT or Fast Track designations as well as other INDs that meet this criterion, with eligibility to be determined by FDA.
To participate in the CDRP, sponsors should submit a written request as an amendment to the IND. In addition to providing a point of contact and noting any expedited program designations the IND has received to date, the request should include the following information.
To focus pilot resources where they will be most useful and have an impact on the timeliness with which CMC readiness is achieved, prospective applicants to the pilot program should include in their Request to Participate a brief description of their CMC development plan, with a prospective timeline for CMC development that would align with when the clinical development program is expected to be complete:
• The plan should list the remaining CMC tasks and activities anticipated to be necessary, with estimated timeframes. This part of the plan should cover the following CMC-related areas:
○ Currently available product characterization and preliminary identification of critical quality attributes.
○ Summary of the current drug substance and drug product manufacturing process and control strategy (including assays, noting any that are still under development).
○ A brief description of the proposed commercial scale manufacturing and control strategy, including any necessary microbial control strategy—focusing on important differences from clinical scale.
○ Identification of potential commercial manufacturing facilities, including any contract facilities, or, at least, the type (in house, contract manufacturing organization) of facilities anticipated.
○ Plans for ensuring product availability at approval.
○ Drug substance and drug product stability assessment plan.
○ Strategy for process validation (see FDA's guidance for industry entitled “Process Validation: General Principles and Practices” (Ref. 4)).
• Given the expedited clinical timeframe, mapping out a plan for manufacturing readiness within the same overall timespan may reveal potential challenges in accomplishing CMC readiness. The plan should highlight any anticipated CMC challenges—whether related to the bullets above or otherwise. This will facilitate FDA engagement and collaboration. Participants in the pilot should plan to discuss these challenges with FDA during the pilot. For CDER-regulated products, see MAPP 5015.13, “Quality Assessment for Products in Expedited Programs” (Ref. 5).
• The CMC Development Plan should include proposed timing (
FDA intends to select CBER and CDER INDs based on the criteria outlined below. Requests will be acknowledged and reviewed when received. FDA intends to issue a Proceed to Disclosure Agreement letter, if selected into the pilot, or deny letter within 90 days of receipt.
In selecting INDs for the pilot program, FDA intends to consider factors such as: (1) anticipated clinical benefits of facilitating earlier patient access to the product, (2) novelty of the product, (3) complexity of the product or its manufacturing process, including technology, and (4) anticipated CMC challenges. Overall, FDA intends to seek balance and diversity in product types and therapeutic indications to obtain a variety of relevant experience and learnings from the pilot.
During this CDRP program, sponsors will have the ability to discuss their product development strategies and goals with FDA review staff during the two dedicated Type B meetings, as well as in additional CMC-focused discussions. Besides additional interactions and collaboration with FDA, for those INDs in the pilot, FDA will assemble a team to support the CMC development and readiness of the IND,
In preparation for a meeting, sponsors should submit written questions along with a background information package clearly marked as a “PDUFA VII CDRP meeting” as part of the cover letter to enable FDA review staff to address the questions. The briefing package should be submitted to the corresponding IND. Meetings associated with the pilot should be requested by sponsors. For additional information on meetings and other communications between the sponsors and FDA, see the FDA draft guidance for industry entitled “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Sponsors or Applicants of PDUFA Products” (September 2023) (Ref. 6), CDER MAPP 6025.6: “Good Review Practice: Management of Breakthrough Therapy-Designated Drugs and Biologics” (Rev. 1) (February 2024) (Ref. 7), CBER “SOPP 8101.1: Regulatory Meetings With Sponsors and Applicants for Drugs and Biological Products” (March 2023) (Ref. 8), and CBER “SOPP 8212: Breakthrough Therapy Products—Designation and Management” (August 2023) (Ref. 9).
Collections of information from fewer than 10 respondents within any 12-month period are not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)). To the extent this information collection involves 10 or
The following references are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500, and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at
1. “PDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years 2023 Through 2027” at
2. FDA guidance for industry “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics” (May 2014):
3. FDA guidance for industry “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Certain Human Pharmaceutical Product Applications and Related Submissions Using the eCTD Specifications” (Rev. 8) (September 2024):
4. FDA guidance for industry “Process Validation: General Principles and Practices” (Rev. 1) (January 2011):
5. CDER MAPP 5015.13: “Quality Assessment for Products in Expedited Programs” (December 2022):
6. FDA draft guidance for industry “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Sponsors or Applicants of PDUFA Products” (Rev. 1) (September 2023):
7. CDER MAPP 6025.6: “Good Review Practice: Management of Breakthrough Therapy-Designated Drugs and Biologics” (Rev. 1) (February 2024):
8. CBER “SOPP 8101.1: Regulatory Meetings With Sponsors and Applicants for Drugs and Biological Products” (July 2024):
9. CBER “SOPP 8212: Breakthrough Therapy Products—Designation and Management” (August 2023):
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Patient-Focused Drug Development: Workshop #2 to Discuss Methodologic and Other Challenges Related to Patient Experience Data.” The purpose of the public workshop is to discuss methodological challenges related to patient experience data, and other areas of greatest interest or concern to public stakeholders.
The public workshop will be held virtually on September 18, 2025, from 12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time, and September 19, 2025, from 12:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time. Either electronic or written comments on this public workshop must be submitted by November 18, 2025. See the
The public workshop will be held virtually using the Zoom platform. The link for the public workshop will be sent to registrants upon registration.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Ethan Gabbour, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6306, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8112,
Under the seventh iteration of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, incorporated as part of the FDA User Fee Reauthorization Act of 2022, FDA committed to facilitate the advancement and use of systematic approaches to collect and utilize robust and meaningful patient and caregiver input that can more consistently inform drug development and, as appropriate, regulatory decision making. This included issuing a Request for Information (RFI) available at
The purpose of this virtual public workshop is to highlight and discuss methodological issues related to patient experience data, including the submission and evaluation of patient experience data in the context of the benefit-risk assessment and product labeling, as well as other areas of greatest interest or concern to stakeholders. This workshop will build upon the previous workshop and will feature presentations and panel discussions with experts on selected methodologies and the challenges and opportunities they present. In addition, this workshop will present a draft version of an updated evidence dossier template to facilitate the submission of evidence to FDA to support a Clinical Outcome Assessment.
Registration is free. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register to receive a link to the meeting. Registrants will receive a confirmation email after they register.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined that MODESYO (dordaviprone), approved August 6, 2025, manufactured by Chimerix, Inc.,
Quyen Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2771.
FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined MODESYO (dordaviprone) manufactured by Chimerix, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. MODESYO (dordaviprone) capsules are indicated for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 1 year of age and older with diffuse midline glioma harboring an H3 K27M mutation with progressive disease following prior therapy.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than September 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Samantha Miller, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
A 60-day notice published in the
There will be minor changes to this information collection, including replacing “gender” with “sex” and a discontinuation of the collection of resumes within the application as they are not used to determine eligibility.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-16 Change 3. NVIC 01-16 Change 3 clarifies equivalencies for Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC), electronic publications, and ENC-derived paper nautical charts offering alternative compliance options to the current carriage requirements found in existing regulations. NVIC 01-16 Change 3 also provides procedures for conducting inspections for vessels electing to comply with one or more equivalencies as contained in Change 3.
The NVIC 01-16 Change 3 was issued August 18, 2025.
To view the document mentioned in this notice, search the docket number USCG-2025-0293 using the Federal Document Management System at
For information about this document call or email Mr. Brian Mottel, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Navigation Systems; telephone 206-267-4657, email
NVIC 01-16 Change 3 replaces Change 2 (signed May 21, 2020) and clarifies equivalencies for ENCs, electronic publications, and ENC-derived paper charts using Electronic Chart Systems (ECS). These equivalencies provide alternative compliance options to existing carriage requirements in Titles 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 46 CFR. Change 3 also outlines inspection procedures for vessels using these equivalencies.
Vessels may use printed charts produced with data from government hydrographic authorities such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, river authorities, or foreign governments. See Enclosure (1) of NVIC 01-16 Change 3 for more information.
Vessels may use ENCs that conform to the International Hydrographic Organization's ENC standard and are issued by or authorized by a government hydrographic office. Additionally, ENCs must be displayed on an ECS conforming to Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) 10900 series standard. See Enclosure (1) of NVIC 01-16 Change 3 for more information.
Publications and rules required by 33 CFR and 46 CFR can be kept in electronic format provided the information is provided by the originating agency. See Enclosure (1) of NVIC 01-16 Change 3, table 2 for more information.
NVIC 01-16 Change 3 is available in the docket and on the following Coast Guard website:
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than September 29, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
CBP is proposing a rulemaking that would only allow sureties or their authorized filer to submit bonds to CBP and they would be required to use an electronic data interchange, except in certain prescribed instances.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than October 27, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0029 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
CBP Forms 214, 214A, 214B, and 214C, which make up the Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Admission and/or Status Designation, are used by companies that bring merchandise, except in certain circumstances including, but not limited to, domestic status merchandise, into an FTZ to register the admission of such merchandise into FTZs and to apply for the appropriate zone status. Form 214A is not filled out separately by respondents; it is simply a copy of Form 214 that CBP gives to the Census Bureau. Form 214B is a continuation sheet for Form 214 that respondents use when they need more room to add line items to the form. Form 214C is a continuation sheet for Form 214A that respondents use when they need more room to add line items to the form.
CBP Form 216, Foreign-Trade Zone Activity Permit, is used by companies to request approval to manipulate, manufacture, exhibit, or destroy merchandise in an FTZ.
These FTZ forms are authorized by 19 U.S.C. 81 and provided for by 19 CFR 146.22, 146.32, 146.35, 146.36, 146.37, 146.39, 146.40, 146.41, 146.44, 146.52, 146.53, and 146.66. These forms are accessible at:
This collection of information applies to the importing and trade community who are familiar with import procedures and with CBP regulations.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than October 27, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0096 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This information is submitted by members of the trade community who are familiar with CBP regulations.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than October 27, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0032 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Email. Submit comments to:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The collection of information is supplemental to importer information about goods subject to the actual use provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and pursuant to section 10.137 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (19 CFR 10.137).
Importers of goods subject to 19 CFR 10.137-10.139 Rate of Duty Dependent Upon Actual Use Provisions are required to show the imported item/merchandise:
1. Is not on an exclusion list;
2. Complies with provisions of the law; and
3. Meets the required actual use provisions laid out in law.
This information is collected from members of the trade community who are familiar with CBP regulations.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This notice advises the public that, pursuant to HR-1, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will require aliens to pay a new fee to apply for a CBP Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record, and to enroll in the Electronic Visa Update System. Additionally, pursuant to HR-1, the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) fee for authorizations has increased. This notice advises the public of the HR-1 applicable fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025.
CBP will begin assessing the new HR-1 fees described in this notice on September 30, 2025.
Melanie Mataxas, Director, Electronic Systems Travel Authorization, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at 202-325-1372 or at
On July 4, 2025, the President signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (“HR-1”). HR-1 was a comprehensive legislative package that changed many laws and added new laws that touch many areas of the United States Government.
This notice states the FY 2025 rates for three fees specified in HR-1 that are generally administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
CBP issues an electronic CBP Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record to all arriving aliens who are legally required to submit that form (unless otherwise exempted).
Pursuant to HR-1, the Secretary of Homeland Security must require the payment of a fee for any alien who submits an application for a Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record.
The $24 fee is in addition to any other fee applicable by law.
ESTA is the online system through which aliens intending to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) must obtain an electronic travel authorization in advance of travel to the United States.
Section 100014 of Public Law 119-21 amended section 217(h)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1187(h)(3)(B)) to increase the fee for the use of ESTA to $40. The minimum ESTA fee for FY 2025 is now $40.
EVUS is an online system currently used by nationals of the People's Republic of China (PRC) holding a 10-year B1/B2, B1 or B2 (visitor) visa to provide required information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) prior to travel to the United States.
Pursuant to HR-1, the Secretary of Homeland Security must require the payment of a fee by any alien enrolling in EVUS. Public Law 119-21 sec. 100015. The alien must pay the fee at the time of enrollment.
Rodney S. Scott, Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than September 29, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than August 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0014 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than September 29, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
An entry filer interested in becoming a GBI Test participant may provide the following applicant information via email to the GBI Inbox (
Once programming has been updated as per items listed in the proposed changes below, Automated Broker Interface (ABI) filers (including brokers and importers of record who are not self-filers), participating in the test, will be required to complete a GBI enrollment process, via ABI, prior to submitting the identifiers on an electronic entry (ACE Cargo Release). Filers are responsible for any associated costs to obtain one or more of the identifiers and can submit identifiers for the following supply chain parties:
In addition, a new optional data element consisting of a free text field will be made available for each of the optional parties; it will allow filers to input additional descriptions and information about the specific party type or the underlying entity.
By testing the identifiers, CBP will take its first step in determining whether to amend regulations to mandate the GBI solution. Furthermore, CBP will understand the utility of collecting and/or combining the identifiers' data and will be able to make an informed decision on whether to mandate the use of the GBI solution as an alternative for the Manufacturer/Shipper Identification Code (MID).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Office of Trade (OT) is submitting this PRA update for the changes proposed to enhance supply chain traceability and visibility in response to the growing complexity of global trade. Programming updates are also needed to reflect changes announced via
1. The first programming change involves a modification within the Global Business Identifiers (GBI) Enrollment database by allowing the trade to submit one or more of the unique GBI's and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)) for a supply chain entity, as opposed to all three as previously approved and announced via the July 21, 2023,
2. After GBI Enrollment is modified to accept one or more identifiers instead of
3. The GBI Test is also expanding the available GBI supply chain entity party types from the original six optional parties (Manufacturer, Shipper, Seller, Exporter, Distributor, Packager), to include two new parties: “Intermediary” and “Source,” along with optional free text fields for all the parties that will allow filers to voluntarily input additional descriptions and information about the specific party type or the underlying entity. These party types and the free text fields would be made available in the GBI Enrollment database as well as in ACE Cargo Release. Collectively, the updates aim to enhance upstream supply chain traceability and visibility while addressing the increasing complexity of global trade supply chains. All participation and data is voluntary.
4. As a demonstration of CBP's intent to expand the choices of identifiers available to filers over the duration of the Test, CBP is also working to add new voluntary GBI identifiers, beginning with the Altana ID (ALTA) maintained by Altana Technologies USG Inc. (Altana), as announced on August 8, 2025 in the
CBP encourages the trade to comment specifically on whether there are other comparable identifiers that the trade already has, or that it would be advantageous for CBP to include.
Section 484 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S. Code 1484) and Part 141, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 19 (19 CFR part 141), pertain to the entry of merchandise and authorize CBP to require information that is necessary for CBP to determine whether merchandise may be released from CBP custody. Provisions of the U.S. Code and CBP regulations, in various parts and related to various types of merchandise, specify information that is required for entry. For reference, Part 163, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 19 (19 CFR part 163 Appendix A) refers to a wide variety of regulatory provisions for certain information that may be required by CBP.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
30-Day notice and request for comments; new information collection request, 1670-NEW.
The Infrastructure Security Division (ISD) within Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. CISA previously published this information collection request (ICR) in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
If additional information is required contact: Jonathan Moaikel; 202-251-5276;
CISA's ISD supports the homeland security mission of critical infrastructure security. As part of this mission, CISA Protective Security Advisors (PSAs)
One type of assessment PSAs can perform is an Infrastructure Visualization Platform (IVP). IVPs integrate high-resolution, interactive visual data as well as additional assessment information. For a PSA to conduct an assessment, each stakeholder must complete an IVP Pre-Collection Questionnaire. The questionnaire requests information such as the purpose of the IVP assessment being requested, the security point of contact the team will be meeting with when they arrive at the facility, who will be escorting the team as they tour the facility, special considerations the collection team need to plan for prior to arriving at the facility, and priority areas know as Areas of Emphasis that the team should be focused on while conducting the IVP assessment collection. When the form is completed and submitted, the IVP team can better plan for the assessment by reviewing locations designated as Areas of Emphasis (AOEs) to ensure those areas receive an assessment, to know who appropriate points of contact are (stakeholder requesting and escort who will be with the team during the collect), and to address special considerations prior to showing up for the collect.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
30-Day notice of information collection; request for comment; reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.
The Emergency Communications Division (ECD) within Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) submits the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance. CISA previously published this information collection request (ICR) in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 29, 2025.
Submissions received after the deadline for receiving comments may not be considered.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number CISA-2025-0005, by one of the following methods:
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ralph Barnett III, at (703) 705-6130, or email at
On November 16, 2018, Congress passed Public Law 115-278, to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101
Through collaboration with emergency responders and elected officials across all levels of government, SAFECOM works to improve emergency response providers' inter-jurisdictional and interdisciplinary emergency communications interoperability across local, regional, tribal, State, territorial, international borders, and with Federal government entities. SAFECOM works with existing Federal communications programs and key emergency response stakeholders to address the need to develop better technologies and processes for the coordination of existing communications systems and future networks.
The SAFECOM Membership Questionnaire is an internal SAFECOM document disseminated only to active
The DHS/CISA/ECD will disseminate the SAFECOM Membership Questionnaire to active SAFECOM Members as a fillable PDF document. SAFECOM intends to use the Questionnaire to examine its Membership body, identify membership gaps, obtain updated information on SAFECOM's membership body (
The Questionnaire will encompass eight interdependent sections of questions. The SAFECOM Internal Membership section requests each Member to provide their name, state of residence, and the number of hours per month he/she contributes to SAFECOM-led initiatives (
This information collection request was previously approved by OMB on 07/21/2022 with an expiration date of 07/31/2025. This is a request for an extension to continue the same collection.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Reclamation, are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Jessica Torrey by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 24, 2025, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Wonderland Switzerland AG of Switzerland; Iron Mountains, LLC of Morgantown, Pennsylvania; Nuna International B.V. of the Netherlands; Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. of Morgantown, Pennsylvania; Joie International Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong; Joie Children's Products, Inc. of Morgantown, Pennsylvania; and Graco Children's Products Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. Supplements to the complaint were filed on July 30, 2025 and August 13, 2025. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain child car seats by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,625,043 (“the '043 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,457,168 (“the '168 patent”). The complaint, as supplemented, further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Susan Orndoff, The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1 and 2 of the '043 patent and claims 17, 20, 25, and 28 of the '168 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “adjustable child car seats that either have a detachable seat back or are rotatable on a support base”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a)
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before September 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
Underground mine operators are required to submit to MSHA for approval, a plan for the instruction of miners in firefighting and evacuation procedures to be followed in event of an emergency. In addition, fire drills are to be conducted quarterly, equipment tested, and a record kept of the drills and testing results. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before September 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty to protect the safety and health of miners. Further, Section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811(a), authorizes the Secretary to develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines. The existing standards provide that each coal mine operator sample bimonthly the designated occupations or work locations of the mine and submit these samples to MSHA for analysis to determine if the mine is complying with the applicable dust standards. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before September 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
Regulations 30 CFR 57.5047 require records be kept of cumulative individual gamma radiation exposure to ensure that annual exposure does not exceed 5 Rems. It is intended to protect the health of workers in mines with radioactive ores. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). The ASAP will hold its Third Quarterly Meeting for 2025. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight.
Friday, September 19, 2025, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., eastern time.
Public attendance will be virtual only. See dial-in information below under
Ms. Carol J. Hamilton, ASAP Executive Director, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1857 or
As noted above, this meeting is only available telephonically. Any interested person must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888-566-6133; passcode 8343253 and then the # sign. At the beginning of the meeting, members of the public may make a verbal presentation to the Panel limited to the subject of safety in NASA, not to exceed 5 minutes in length. To do so, members of the public must contact Ms. Carol J. Hamilton at
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of renewal of charter of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC).
Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and after consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, the NASA Administrator has determined that the renewal of the charter of the NAC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on NASA by law. The renewed charter is for a two-year period ending September 30, 2027.
Ms. Jamie M. Krauk, Designated Federal Officer, NASA Advisory Council, Office of International and Interagency Relations, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; phone (202) 961-4004; email
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the International Space Station Advisory Committee. The purpose of the meeting is to review aspects related to the safety and operational readiness of the International Space Station.
Wednesday, September 17, 2025, 10:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m., eastern time.
Public attendance will be virtual only. See dial-in and Webinar information below under
Dennis McSweeney, Designated Federal Officer, ISS Advisory Committee, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, via email at
As noted above, this meeting is virtual and will be open to the public via Webinar and telephonically. Webinar connectivity information is provided below. For audio, when you join the Webinar event, you may use your computer to join or call the U.S. toll conference number listed.
September 17, 2025, link:
Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Panel via electronic submission to Mr. McSweeney at the email address previously noted with the subject line `Comments for 09/17/25 ISSAC open meeting.' Written statements should be limited to the subject of safety and operational readiness of the International Space Station.
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this day to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
This is a virtual meeting. Members and the public may attend this meeting virtually via Zoom. Attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the AAAC website:
Registration for the virtual meeting can be accessed via the following link:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this notice regarding the issuance of a final environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for its review and approval of the initial and updated decommissioning funding plans (DFPs) submitted for the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1).
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on August 28, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1006 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Yen-Ju Chen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1018, email:
The NRC is considering the approval of the initial and updated DFPs submitted by the TMI-1 ISFSI licensee, and the NRC staff has prepared a final EA and FONSI determination for the initial and updated TMI-1 ISFSI DFPs in accordance with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the
The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the
The table in this notice includes the plant name, docket number, licensee, and ADAMS accession number for the final EA and FONSI determination for the TMI-1 ISFSI. The table also includes the ADAMS accession numbers for other relevant documents, including the initial and updated DFP submittals. For further details with respect to these actions, see the NRC staff's final EA and FONSI determinations which are available for public inspection in ADAMS and at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an exemption in response to a May 2, 2025, request from Entergy Operations, Inc., to allow the submittal of a renewal application for ESP-002 no later than 45 days prior to the expiration of the existing permit and still place the permit in timely renewal under NRC regulations.
The exemption was issued on August 18, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0973 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jordan Glisan, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3478, email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
System Energy Resources Inc. (SERI), a subsidiary of the Entergy Corporation, is the holder of early site permit (ESP) ESP-002. Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), also a subsidiary of Entergy Corporation, on behalf of SERI, is the requestor of this exemption. The ESP was issued for a site located approximately 25 miles south of the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi and adjacent to the existing Grand Gulf nuclear power station. The ESP approves the site for additional nuclear power plants, which may be modular and designed to operate collectively at no more than 8600 megawatts thermal, independent of a specific nuclear plant design or an application for a construction permit or combined license. The permit also provides, among other things, that the site is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The Grand Gulf ESP became effective on April 5, 2007, and expires on April 5, 2027.
By letter dated May 2, 2025 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML25122A082), Entergy requested an exemption from 10 CFR 2.109, “Effect of timely renewal application,” section (c), and 10 CFR 52.29, “Application for renewal,” to allow the renewal application for ESP-002 to be submitted no later than 45 days prior to the expiration of the existing permit and still receive timely renewal protection under 10 CFR 2.109(c) and 10 CFR 52.29.
The regulation at 10 CFR 2.109(c) requires that the permit holder file a sufficient application for renewal no less than 12 months before the expiration of the existing ESP. The regulation at 10 CFR 52.29 requires that the permit holder file a sufficient application for renewal no more than 36 months prior to the expiration of the permit in order to be in timely renewal. Specifically, 10 CFR 2.109(c) states “If the holder of an early site permit licensed under subpart A of Part 52 of this chapter files a sufficient application for renewal under § 52.29 of this chapter at least 12 months before the expiration of the existing early site permit, the existing permit will not be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally determined.” Additionally, 10 CFR 52.29(a) states, “Not less than 12, nor more than 36 months before the expiration date stated in the early site permit, or any later renewal period, the permit holder may apply for a renewal of the permit.” Lastly, 10 CFR 52.29(c) states, “An early site permit, either original or renewed, for which a timely application for renewal has been filed, remains in effect until the Commission has determined whether to renew the permit.”
Exemptions from the requirements of Part 52 are governed by 10 CFR 52.7, which states that an exemption under that Part must meet the exemption requirements in 10 CFR 50.12. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 52 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) special circumstances are present, as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2). In its application, Entergy stated that two special circumstances apply to its request. The two special circumstances that Entergy included in its request are:
(1) Application of the regulation would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
(2) There is present any other material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption.
This exemption would allow Entergy to submit a sufficient renewal application for ESP-002 no later than 45 days prior to the expiration of its existing permit and the permit would still be in timely renewal under 10 CFR 2.109(c) and 10 CFR 52.29. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 558(c), states:
When the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency.
The APA does not require a specific time period within which an application for a renewal must be filed; the 12-month time period specified in 10 CFR 2.109(c) and 10 CFR 52.29 is specific to NRC regulations,
The requested exemption to allow a 45-day time period, rather than the 12 months specified in 10 CFR 2.109(c) and 10 CFR 52.29(a), for Entergy to submit a sufficient renewal application and place the permit in timely renewal is a scheduling change. The action does not change the manner in which the permit maintains public health and safety because no additional changes are made as a result of the action. The NRC finds that a period of 45 days provides sufficient time for the NRC to begin to perform an acceptance review, and that review time beyond the expiration date of the permit does not pose an undue risk to public health and safety due to a lack of activity at the site. Based on the above, the NRC finds that the action does not cause undue risk to public health and safety.
The requested exemption to allow a 45-day time period, rather than the 12 months specified in 10 CFR 2.109(c) and 10 CFR 52.29, for Entergy to submit a sufficient renewal application and place the permit in timely renewal is a scheduling change. This exemption would not change the permit and therefore would not impact the security of the site. Therefore, the NRC finds that the action is consistent with the common defense and security because the scheduling change would have no impact on site security.
The purpose of 10 CFR 2.109(c), as it is applied to nuclear power reactors licensed by the NRC, is to implement the “timely renewal” provision of Section 9(b) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), which states:
When the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency.
The underlying purpose of this “timely renewal” provision in the APA is to protect a licensee who is engaged in an ongoing licensed activity and who has complied with agency rules in applying for a renewed or new license from facing license expiration as the result of delays in the administrative process.
Application of the 12-month period in 10 CFR 2.109(c) and 10 CFR 52.29 is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the timely renewal provision in the regulation if Entergy files a sufficient renewal application no later than 45 days prior to expiration of the permit. The NRC acknowledges that receipt of a renewal application for ESP-002 would result in an NRC review that would take place beyond the expiration date of the ESP. The NRC staff has determined this will not pose any issues to public health and safety or common defense and security or cause an undue hardship in the regulatory processes surrounding the ESP as a result of the additional time that the ESP is active because no construction or operation activities are taking place on site. Therefore, the NRC finds that the special circumstance requirement in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) has been met here.
The NRC has determined that the issuance of the requested exemption meets the provisions of categorical exclusion specified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), the granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation in Chapter 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations qualifies as a categorical exclusion if (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought involves one of several matters, which includes scheduling requirements under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(G). The basis for NRC's determination is provided below.
The regulation at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i) requires an exemption to involve a no significant hazards consideration if it is to qualify for a categorical exclusion. The criteria for making a no significant hazards consideration determination are found in 10 CFR 50.92(c). Because there is no existing operating nuclear facility associated with ESP-002, and the exemption only affects the timeframe for submitting the ESP-002 renewal application, the exemption would not involve changes to accident analyses source term parameters, the possibility for new or different kinds of accidents, or associated margins of safety. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the granting of this exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration because allowing the submittal of the ESP renewal application less than 12 months before expiration of the existing permit while maintaining the protection of the timely renewal provision in 10 CFR 2.109(c) does not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i) are met.
The regulation at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii) requires the exemption to involve no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite. In addition, the regulation at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iii) requires the exemption to involve no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. The requested exemption constitutes a change to the schedule by which Entergy must submit its ESP renewal application while still maintaining timely renewal, which is administrative in nature. Therefore, the exemption does not involve any change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of effluents that may be released offsite and also does not contribute to any significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii) and (iii) are met.
The regulation at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv) requires the exemption to involve no significant construction impact. The requested exemption is not associated with construction, and the exemption does not propose any changes or alterations to the site. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv) are met because there is no significant construction impact.
The regulation at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v) requires the exemption to involve no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The requested exemption constitutes a change to the schedule by which Entergy must submit its ESP renewal application while still maintaining timely renewal. This exemption is administrative in nature and does not impact the probability or consequences of accidents. Thus, there is no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences of, a radiological accident. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v) are met.
The regulations at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(A-I) list the specific types of requirements from which an exemption may be sought. These include 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(G), which involves scheduling requirements. This exemption, which allows Entergy to submit the ESP renewal application no later than 45 days prior to expiration of the permit, involves scheduling requirements. Therefore, the requirement in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(G) is met.
Based on the above, the NRC concludes that the proposed exemption meets the eligibility criteria for a categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption request.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 and 10 CFR 52.7, the requested exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Additionally, special circumstances, as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants Entergy a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 2.109(c) and 10 CFR 52.29 for the Grand Gulf Early Site Permit ESP-002 to allow the submittal of the Grand Gulf Early Site Permit ESP-002 renewal application no later than 45 days prior to expiration of the permit while still receiving the protections of timely renewal.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of August 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
Federal Employee Insurance Operations (FEIO), Healthcare & Insurance (HI), Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on the reinstatement of an expired information collection SF 2817—Life Insurance Election.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 27, 2025.
You may submit comments using the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number or title for this document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing at
A copy of this information collection request with applicable supporting documentation may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-BD, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0230). OPM is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Standard Form 2817 is used by employees and federal assignees (those who have acquired control of an employee/annuitant's coverage through an assignment or “transfer” of the ownership of the life insurance) to elect or make changes to a life insurance election under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program. Clearance of this form as used by active employees is not required according to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, only the use of this form by assignees,
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from Sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i), and 61(a) of the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies that intend to elect to be regulated as business development companies to issue multiple classes of shares with varying sales loads and asset-based distribution and/or service fees.
Third Point Private Capital LLC and Third Point Private Capital Partners
The application was filed on June 4, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Jacob D. Krawitz, Senior Special Counsel, or Kaitlin Bottock, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, dated June 4, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at,
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the Canary Staked INJ ETF (the “Trust”),
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes
Since 2017, the Commission has approved or disapproved exchange filings to list and trade series of Trust Issued Receipts, including spot-based Commodity-Based Trust Shares, on the basis of whether the listing exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size related to the underlying commodity to be held (the “Winklevoss Test”).
The Commission recently issued orders granting approval for proposals to list bitcoin- and ether-based commodity trust shares and bitcoin-based, ether-based, and a combination of bitcoin- and ether-based trust issued receipts (these proposed funds are nearly identical to the Trust, but proposed to hold bitcoin and/or ether, respectively, instead of INJ) (“Spot Bitcoin ETPs” and “Spot ETH ETPs”). In both the Spot Bitcoin ETP Approval Order and Spot ETH ETP Approval Order, the Commission found that sufficient “other means” of preventing fraud and manipulation had been demonstrated that justified dispensing with a surveillance-sharing agreement of significant size. Specifically, the Commission found that while the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) futures market for both bitcoin and ether were not of “significant size” related to the spot market, the Exchange demonstrated that other means could be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the proposals.
As further discussed below, both the Exchange and the Sponsor believe that this proposal and the included analysis are sufficient to establish that the proposal is consistent with the Act itself and, additionally, that there are sufficient “other means” of preventing fraud and manipulation that warrant dispensing of the surveillance-sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size, as was done with both Spot Bitcoin ETPs and Spot ETH ETPs, and that this proposal should be approved.
INJ is the native, proof-of-stake cryptographic token of the Injective Network, a decentralized blockchain platform designed to support a wide range of financial applications and decentralized exchange functionality. The Injective Network distinguishes itself through its custom implementation of the Tendermint-based Proof-of-Stake consensus framework, which enables robust security and efficient transaction processing. Unlike many other blockchain networks, the Injective Network features built-in financial primitives, including a native exchange module that powers shared liquidity across applications and enables on-chain orderbook management, trade execution, order matching, and settlement.
The Injective Network operates on a delegated proof-of-stake model, where validators stake INJ to secure the network, validate transactions, and participate in governance. Validators play a critical role in maintaining network integrity by operating nodes that commit new blocks to the Injective Blockchain. INJ token holders can delegate their tokens to validators without operating nodes themselves, earning a share of validator rewards distributed pro rata. The network employs a token-weighted voting system for governance, where one INJ equals one vote, and only staked INJ is eligible to participate in proposal voting.
Unlike other digital assets that maintain static supply mechanisms, the Injective Network employs a dynamic supply mechanism called the “Moving Change Rate Mechanism” that automatically adjusts INJ supply on a block-by-block basis. This system responds to the network's targeted bonded-stake ratio, increasing or decreasing minting rates to maintain optimal staking participation. The initial supply began at 100,000,000 INJ at the token generation event on October 21, 2020, with tokens allocated across seed sales, private sales, team allocation, and ecosystem development.
The INJ token serves multiple functions within the Injective Network, including securing the network through staking, enabling governance participation, and facilitating the payment of transaction fees. All transactions on the Injective Network require INJ to pay for gas fees, which cover the computational resources necessary for processing and validating transactions. Additionally, INJ distinguishes itself through engineered deflationary characteristics via an innovative Burn Auction system, where INJ is periodically removed from circulation through competitive bidding on baskets of tokens accumulated from protocol revenue.
The Injective Network supports advanced financial applications through its plug-and-play financial primitives, including the exchange module that enables shared liquidity environments and the auction module that orchestrates the deflationary burn mechanism. The network can handle complex financial operations including derivatives trading, spot trading, and cross-chain transactions. INJ can be transferred in direct peer-to-peer transactions through the direct sending of INJ over the Injective Network from one INJ address to another.
As noted above, this proposal is to list and trade shares of the Trust that would hold spot INJ and, as described below, cause the Trust to stake a portion of its INJ.
The Commission has approved numerous series of Trust Issued Receipts,
More recently, the Commission has applied the Winklevoss Test while also recognizing that the “regulated market of significant size” standard is not the only means for satisfying Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. In the specifically providing that a listing exchange could demonstrate that “other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance-sharing agreement.
Over the past several years, U.S. investor exposure to INJ has grown into billions of dollars reaching a fully diluted market cap of greater than $4.5 billion in March 2024 and a market cap greater than $1.4 billion in July 2025. The Exchange believes that approving this proposal (and comparable proposals) provides the Commission with the opportunity to allow U.S. investors with access to INJ in a regulated and transparent exchange-traded vehicle that would act to limit risk to U.S. investors.
The policy concerns that the Exchange Act is designed to address are also otherwise mitigated by the fact that the size of the market for the underlying reference asset ($1.4 billion fully diluted value in July 2025) and the nature of the INJ ecosystem reduces its susceptibility to manipulation. The geographically diverse and continuous nature of INJ trading makes it difficult and prohibitively costly to manipulate the price of INJ and, in many instances, the INJ market can be less susceptible to manipulation than the equity, fixed income, and commodity futures markets. There are a number of reasons this is the case, including that there is not inside information about revenue, earnings, corporate activities, or sources of supply; manipulation of the price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global INJ price in order to be effective; a substantial over-the-counter market provides liquidity and shock-absorbing capacity; INJ's 24/7/365 nature provides constant arbitrage opportunities across all trading venues; and it is unlikely that any one actor could obtain a dominant market share.
Further, INJ is arguably less susceptible to manipulation than other commodities that underlie ETPs; there may be inside information relating to the supply of the physical commodity such as the discovery of new sources of supply or significant disruptions at mining facilities that supply the commodity that simply are inapplicable as it relates to certain cryptoassets, including INJ. Further, the Exchange believes that the fragmentation across INJ trading platforms and increased adoption of INJ, as displayed through increased user engagement and trading volumes, and the Injective Network makes manipulation of INJ prices through continuous trading activity more difficult. Moreover, the linkage between the INJ markets and the presence of arbitrageurs in those markets means that the manipulation of the price of INJ price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global INJ price in order to be effective. Arbitrageurs must have funds distributed across multiple INJ trading platforms in order to take advantage of temporary price dislocations, thereby making it unlikely that there will be strong concentration of funds on any particular INJ trading platform. As a result, the potential for manipulation on a particular INJ trading platform would require overcoming the liquidity supply of such arbitrageurs who are effectively eliminating any cross-market pricing differences. For all of these reasons, INJ is not particularly susceptible to manipulation, especially as compared to other approved ETP reference assets.
CSC Delaware Trust Company is the trustee (“Trustee”). A third party will be the administrator (“Administrator”) and transfer agent (“Transfer Agent”) and will be responsible for the custody of the Trust's cash and cash equivalents
According to the Registration Statement, each Share will represent a fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust. The Trust's assets will only consist of INJ, cash, or cash and cash equivalents.
According to the Registration Statement, the Trust will be neither an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended,
The Sponsor may stake, or cause to be staked, all or a portion of the Trust's INJ through one or more trusted staking providers (“Staking Providers”). In consideration for any staking activity in which the Trust may engage, the Trust would receive all or a portion of the staking rewards generated through staking activities, which may be treated as income to the Trust. The Trust will not acquire and will disclaim any incidental right (“IR”), or IR asset received, for example as a result of forks or airdrops, and such assets will not be taken into account for purposes of determining NAV.
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions or in-kind transactions in blocks of
According to the Registration Statement and as further described below, the Trust's investment objective is to seek to track the performance of INJ, as measured by the CoinDesk INJ USD CCIX 60 min NY Rate (“Pricing Benchmark”), adjusted for the Trust's expenses and other liabilities. In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold INJ and will value its Shares daily as of 4:00 p.m. ET using the same methodology used to calculate the Pricing Benchmark. All of the Trust's INJ will be held by the Custodian.
As described in the Registration Statement, The Trust will use the Pricing Benchmark to calculate the Trust's NAV. The Trust will determine the INJ Pricing Benchmark price and value its Shares daily based on the value of INJ as reflected by the Pricing Benchmark. The Pricing Benchmark will be calculated daily and aggregates the notional value of INJ trading across major INJ spot trading platforms, as determined by the provider.
NAV means the total assets of the Trust (which includes all INJ and cash and cash equivalents) less total liabilities of the Trust. The Administrator determines the NAV of the Trust on each day that the Exchange is open for regular trading, as promptly as practical after 4:00 p.m. ET based on the closing value of the Pricing Benchmark. The NAV of the Trust is the aggregate value of the Trust's assets less its estimated accrued but unpaid liabilities (which include accrued expenses). In determining the NAV, the Administrator values the INJ held by the Trust based on the closing value of the Pricing Benchmark as of 4:00 p.m. ET. The Administrator also determines the NAV per Share. The NAV for the Trust will be calculated by the Administrator once a day and will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time.
In addition to the price transparency of the Pricing Benchmark, the Trust will provide information regarding the Trust's INJ holdings as well as additional data regarding the Trust. The website for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information: (a) the current NAV per Share daily and the prior business day's NAV per Share and the reported BZX Official Closing Price;
The Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) will be updated during Regular Trading Hours to reflect changes in the value of the Trust's INJ holdings during the trading day. The IIV disseminated during Regular Trading Hours should not be viewed as an actual real-time update of the NAV, which will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The IIV may differ from the NAV because NAV is calculated, using the closing value of the Pricing Benchmark, once a day at 4 p.m. ET, whereas the IIV draws prices from the last trade on each constituent platform in an effort to produce a relevant, real-time price). The Trust will provide an IIV per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third-party financial data provider during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.). The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours through the facilities of the CTA and Consolidated Quotation System (CQS) high speed lines. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services, such as Bloomberg and Reuters.
The price of INJ will be made available by one or more major market data vendors, updated at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours.
As noted above, the Pricing Benchmark is calculated every 15 seconds and information about the Pricing Benchmark and Pricing Benchmark value, including index data and key elements of how the Pricing Benchmark is calculated, will be publicly available at a website maintained by the provider of the Pricing Benchmark.
Quotation and last sale information for INJ is widely disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. Information relating to trading, including price and volume information, in INJ is available from major market data vendors and from the trading platforms on which INJ are traded. Depth of book information is also available from INJ trading platforms. The normal trading hours for INJ trading platforms are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's BZX Official Closing Price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA.
The Custodian's services (i) allow INJ to be deposited from a public blockchain address to the Trust's INJ account; (ii) allow INJ to be withdrawn from the INJ account to a public blockchain address as instructed by the Trust; and (iii) allow INJ to be staked. The custody agreement requires the Custodian to hold the Trust's INJ in cold storage, unless required to facilitate withdrawals as a temporary measure. The Custodian will use segregated cold storage INJ addresses for the Trust which are separate from the INJ addresses that the Custodian uses for its other customers and which are directly verifiable via the INJ blockchain. The Custodian will safeguard the private keys to the INJ associated with the Trust's INJ account. The Custodian will at all times record and identify in its books and records that such INJ constitutes the property of the Trust. The Custodian will not withdraw the Trust's INJ from the Trust's account with the Custodian, or loan, hypothecate, pledge or otherwise encumber the Trust's INJ, without the Trust's instruction. If the custody agreement terminates, the Sponsor may appoint another custodian, and the Trust may enter into a custodian agreement with such custodian.
When the Trust sells or INJ its Shares, it will do so in Creation Baskets that are based on the quantity of INJ attributable to each Share (net of the accrued but unpaid Sponsor's fee and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). Creation Baskets are issued and redeemed in exchange for INJ or cash. According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders for Creation Baskets must be placed by 4:00 p.m. ET (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. The day on which an order is properly received is considered the purchase order date. For cash creations, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved cash creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, will submit to one or more previously onboarded trading partners an order to buy the amount of INJ represented by a Creation Basket. For in-kind creations, authorized participants or their designee will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, INJ to the Trust's account with the Custodian in exchange for Shares. For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required is based on the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets being created determined as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the date the purchase order is properly received, in an amount sufficient to purchase the requisite amount of INJ (as described below). With respect to a cash purchase order, as between the Trust and the Authorized Participant, the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the INJ price utilized in calculating NAV on trade date and the price at which the Trust acquires the INJ to the extent the price realized in buying the INJ is higher than the INJ price utilized in the NAV. To the extent the price realized in buying the INJ is lower than the price utilized in the NAV, the Authorized Participant shall keep the dollar impact of any such difference.
For a creation order in-kind, the total in-kind transfer of INJ is based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to the Creation Basket applicable to the date the purchase order is properly received. After the close of business each day, the Administrator determines the quantity of INJ associated with a Creation Basket for the next business day by dividing the number of INJ held by the Trust, adjusted for the amount of INJ constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket. The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. With respect to a cash redemption order, between the Trust and the Authorized Participant, the Authorized Participant will be responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the INJ price utilized in calculating the NAV on trade date and the price realized in selling the INJ to raise the cash needed for the cash redemption order to the extent the price realized in selling the INJ is lower than the INJ price utilized in the NAV. To the extent the price realized from selling the INJ is higher than the price utilized in the NAV, the Authorized Participant shall get to keep the dollar impact of any such difference. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and the authorized participant or its designee will receive INJ for the Shares delivered. The Sponsor (including its delegates) will maintain ownership and control of the Trust's INJ in a manner consistent with good delivery requirements for spot commodity transactions.
The Shares will be subject to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, the Trust must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of listing on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation that the NAV will be calculated daily and that the NAV and information about the assets of the Trust will be made available to all market participants at the same time. The Exchange notes that, as defined in Rule 14.11(e)(4)(C)(i), the Shares will be: (a) issued by a trust that holds (1) a specified commodity
Upon termination of the Trust, the Shares will be removed from listing. The Trustee, CSC Delaware Trust Company, is a trust company having substantial capital and surplus and the experience and facilities for handling corporate trust business, as required under Rule 14.11(e)(4)(E)(iv)(a) and that no change will be made to the trustee without prior notice to and approval of the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that, pursuant to Rule 14.11(e)(4)(F), neither the Exchange nor any agent of the Exchange shall have any liability for damages, claims, losses or expenses caused by any errors, omissions or delays in calculating or disseminating any underlying commodity value, the current value of the underlying commodity required to be deposited to the Trust in connection with issuance of Commodity-Based Trust Shares; resulting from any negligent act or
The Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying INJ or any other INJ derivative through members acting as registered Market Makers, in connection with their proprietary or customer trades.
As a general matter, the Exchange has regulatory jurisdiction over its Members and their associated persons, which include any person or entity controlling a Member. To the extent the Exchange may be found to lack jurisdiction over a subsidiary or affiliate of a Member that does business only in commodities or futures contracts, the Exchange could obtain information regarding the activities of such subsidiary or affiliate through surveillance sharing agreements with regulatory organizations of which such subsidiary or affiliate is a member.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in BZX Rule 11.18. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) the extent to which trading is not occurring in the INJ underlying the Shares; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 14.11(e)(4)(E)(ii), which sets forth circumstances under which trading in the Shares may be halted.
If the IIV or the value of the Pricing Benchmark is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the value of the Pricing Benchmark occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the value of the Pricing Benchmark persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption.
In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants.
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. BZX will allow trading in the Shares during all trading sessions on the Exchange. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in BZX Rule 11.11(a) the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in securities traded on the Exchange is $0.01 where the price is greater than $1.00 per share or $0.0001 where the price is less than $1.00 per share. The Shares of the Trust will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria set forth in BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4).
The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Commodity-Based Trust Shares. FINRA conducts certain cross-market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares or any other INJ derivative with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange, or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares or any other INJ derivative from such markets and other entities.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
The Sponsor has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust or the Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust or the Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (i) the procedures for the creation and redemption of Creation Baskets (and
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Shares. Members purchasing the Shares for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Commission has approved numerous series of Trust Issued Receipts,
More recently, the Commission has applied the Winklevoss Test while also recognizing that the “regulated market of significant size” standard is not the only means for satisfying Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. In the specifically providing that a listing exchange could demonstrate that “other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance-sharing agreement.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is designed to protect investors and the public interest. Over the past several years, U.S. investor exposure to INJ has grown into billions of dollars with a fully diluted market cap of greater than $4.5 billion in March 2024 and greater than $1.4 billion in July 2025. The Exchange believes that approving this proposal (and comparable proposals) provides the Commission with the opportunity to allow U.S. investors with access to INJ in a regulated and transparent exchange-traded vehicle that would act to limit risk to U.S. investors.
The policy concerns that the Exchange Act is designed to address are also otherwise mitigated by the fact that the size of the market for the underlying reference asset ($1.4 billion fully diluted value) and the nature of the INJ ecosystem reduces its susceptibility to manipulation. The geographically diverse and continuous nature of INJ trading makes it difficult and prohibitively costly to manipulate the price of INJ and, in many instances, the INJ market can be less susceptible to manipulation than the equity, fixed income, and commodity futures markets. There are a number of reasons this is the case, including that there is not inside information about revenue, earnings, corporate activities, or sources of supply; manipulation of the price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global INJ price in order to be effective; a substantial over-the-counter market provides liquidity and shock-absorbing capacity; INJ's 24/7/365 nature provides constant arbitrage opportunities across all trading venues; and it is unlikely that any one actor could obtain a dominant market share.
Further, INJ is arguably less susceptible to manipulation than other commodities that underlie ETPs; there may be inside information relating to the supply of the physical commodity such as the discovery of new sources of supply or significant disruptions at mining facilities that supply the commodity that simply are inapplicable as it relates to certain cryptoassets, including INJ. Further, the Exchange believes that the fragmentation across INJ trading platforms and increased adoption of INJ, as displayed through increased user engagement and trading volumes, and the Injective Network make manipulation of INJ prices through continuous trading activity more difficult. Moreover, the linkage between the INJ markets and the presence of arbitrageurs in those markets means that the manipulation of the price of INJ price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global INJ price in order to be effective. Arbitrageurs must have funds distributed across multiple INJ trading platforms in order to take advantage of temporary price dislocations, thereby making it unlikely that there will be strong concentration of funds on any particular INJ trading platform. As a result, the potential for manipulation on a particular INJ trading platform would require overcoming the liquidity supply of such arbitrageurs who are effectively eliminating any cross-market pricing differences. For all of these reasons, INJ is not particularly susceptible to manipulation, especially as compared to other approved ETP reference assets.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4). The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust or the Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust or the Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12. The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and listed INJ derivatives via the ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition to the price transparency of the Pricing Benchmark, the Trust will provide information regarding the Trust's INJ holdings as well as additional data regarding the Trust. The website for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information: (a) the current NAV per Share daily and the prior business day's NAV per Share and the reported BZX Official Closing Price;
The Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) will be updated during Regular Trading Hours to reflect changes in the value of the Trust's INJ holdings during the trading day. The IIV may differ from the NAV because NAV is calculated, using the closing value of the Pricing Benchmark, once a day at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time whereas the IIV draws prices from the last trade on each constituent platform to produce a relevant, real-time price. The IIV disseminated during Regular Trading Hours should not be viewed as an actual real-time update of the NAV, which will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The Trust will provide an IIV per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third-party financial data provider during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.). The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours through the facilities of the CTA and CQS high speed lines. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters.
The price of INJ will be made available by one or more major market data vendors, updated at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours.
As noted above, the Pricing Benchmark is calculated every 15 seconds and information about the Pricing Benchmark and Pricing Benchmark value, including index data and key elements of how the Pricing Benchmark is calculated, will be publicly available at a website maintained by the provider of the Pricing Benchmark.
Quotation and last sale information for INJ is widely disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. Information relating to trading, including price and volume information, in INJ is available from major market data vendors and from the trading platforms on which INJ are traded. Depth of book information is also available from INJ trading platforms. The normal trading hours for INJ trading platforms are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's BZX Official Closing Price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA.
In sum, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, that on the whole the manipulation concerns previously articulated by the Commission are sufficiently mitigated to
The Exchange believes that the proposal is, in particular, designed to protect investors and the public interest. The investor protection issues for U.S. investors has grown significantly over the last several years. As discussed throughout, this growth investor protection concerns need to be re-evaluated and rebalanced with the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices concerns that previous disapproval orders have relied upon.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change, rather will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-7 requires a non-resident broker-dealer (generally, a broker-dealer with its principal place of business in a place not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) registered or applying for registration pursuant to Section 15 of the Exchange Act to maintain—in the United States—complete and current copies of books and records required to be maintained under any rule adopted under the Exchange Act and furnish to the Commission a written notice specifying the address where the copies are located. Alternatively, Rule 17a-7 provides that non-resident broker-dealers may file with the Commission a written undertaking to furnish the requisite books and records to the Commission upon demand within 14 days of the demand.
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 53 non-resident broker-dealers. Based on the Commission's experience, the Commission estimates that the average amount of time necessary to comply with Rule 17a-7 is one hour per year per respondent. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the total industry-wide reporting burden is approximately 53 hours per year. Assuming an average cost per hour of approximately $344 for a compliance manager, the total internal cost of compliance for the respondents is approximately $18,232 per year.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
On May 12, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On July 9, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described in more detail in the Notice,
The investment objective of the Trust is to seek to track the performance of TRX,
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposal to list and trade Shares of the Trust, which would hold TRX, is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices or raises any new or novel concerns not previously contemplated by the Commission.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by September 18, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by October 2, 2025.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 25, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 10, 2025, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On March 11, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Main Street Capital Corporation, MSC Income Fund, Inc., MSC Adviser I, LLC, Main Street CA Lending, LLC, Main Street Capital III, LP, Main Street Equity Interests, Inc., Main Street Mezzanine Fund, LP, MSCC Funding I, LLC, MSC California Holdings LP, MSC Equity Holding, LLC, MSC Equity Holding II, Inc., MSIF Funding, LLC, MS Private Loan Fund I, LP and MS Private Loan Fund II, LP.
The application was filed on May 21, 2025, and amended on August 14, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Laura Solomon, Senior Counsel, or Thomas Ahmadifar, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended and restated application, filed August 14, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system.
The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On February 6, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On March 11, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4882-DR), dated July 22, 2025.
Issued on August 21, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Indiana, dated July 22, 2025, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Update to Secondary Market Program.
The purpose of this Notice is to inform the public that the Small Business Administration (SBA) is maintaining the 89.0% minimum maturity ratio for both SBA Standard Pools and Weighted-Average Coupon (WAC) Pools. The minimum maturity ratio covers the estimated cost of the timely payment guaranty for newly formed SBA 7(a) loan pools. This update will be incorporated, as needed, into the SBA Secondary Market Program Guide and all other appropriate SBA Secondary Market documents.
The update will apply to SBA 7(a) loan pools with an issue date on or after October 1, 2025.
Address comments concerning this Notice to Scott Schaefer, Secondary Market Group, Office of Financial Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; or email to
Scott Schaefer, Secondary Market Group, Office of Financial Assistance at (202) 205-9984; or email to
The Secondary Market Improvements Act of 1984, 15 U.S.C. 634(f) through (h), authorized SBA to guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on Pool Certificates. A Pool Certificate represents a fractional undivided interest in a “Pool,” which is an aggregation of SBA guaranteed portions of loans made by SBA Lenders under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 636(a). In order to support the timely payment guaranty requirement, SBA established the Master Reserve Fund (MRF), which serves as a mechanism to cover the cost of SBA's timely payment guaranty. Borrower payments on the guaranteed portions of pooled loans, as well as SBA guaranty payments on defaulted pooled loans, are deposited into the MRF. Funds are held in the MRF until distributions are made to investors (Registered Holders) of Pool Certificates. The interest earned on the borrower's payments and the SBA guaranty payments deposited into the MRF supports the timely payments made to Registered Holders.
From time to time, SBA provides guidance to SBA Pool Assemblers on the required loan and pool characteristics necessary to form a Pool. These characteristics include, among other things, the minimum number of guaranteed portions of loans required to form a Pool, the allowable difference between the highest and lowest gross and net note rates of the guaranteed portions of loans in a Pool, and the minimum maturity ratio of the guaranteed portions of loans in a Pool. The minimum maturity ratio is equal to the ratio of the shortest and the longest remaining term to maturity of the guaranteed portions of loans in a Pool.
Based on SBA's expectations as to the performance of future Pools, SBA Pool Assemblers must maintain the current 89.0% minimum maturity ratio. Therefore, effective October 1, 2025, all guaranteed portions of loans in Standard Pools and WAC Pools presented for settlement with SBA's Fiscal Transfer Agent will be required to have a minimum maturity ratio of at least 89.0%.
SBA will continue to monitor loan and pool characteristics and will provide notification of additional changes as necessary. It is important to note that there is no change to SBA's obligation to honor its guaranty of the amounts owed to Registered Holders of Pool Certificates and that such guaranty continues to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
This program change will be incorporated as necessary into SBA's Secondary Market Guide and all other appropriate SBA Secondary Market documents. As indicated above, this change will be effective for Standard Pools and WAC Pools with an issue date on or after October 1, 2025.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Jenny Saville: The Anatomy of Painting” at The Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth, in Fort Worth, Texas, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Surface Transportation Board.
Decision No. 3 in Docket No. FD 36873; notice of receipt of prefiling notification.
Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) (collectively, Union Pacific) and Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) (collectively, Norfolk Southern) (Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern collectively, Applicants) have notified the Surface Transportation Board (Board) of their intent to file an application seeking authority for the acquisition of control by UPC, through its wholly owned subsidiary Ruby Merger Sub 1 Corporation, of NSC and, through it, NS, and for the resulting common control by UPC of UP and NS. Applicants have indicated that 2023 will be the base year for their impact analysis and that they anticipate filing their application on or before January 29, 2026.
Any filing submitted in this proceeding, referring to Docket No. 36873, must be filed with the Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each filing must be sent (and may be sent by email only, if service by email is acceptable to the recipient) to each of the following: (1) Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (2) Attorney General of the United States, c/o Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Room 3109, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (3) UP's representative, Michael L. Rosenthal, Covington & Burling LLP, One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20001; (4) NS's representative, Raymond A. Atkins,
Nathaniel Bawcombe at (202) 915-3555. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
Applicants state that UPC and NSC entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated July 28, 2025, under which UPC, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Ruby Merger Sub 1 Corporation, would acquire all outstanding shares of NSC for consideration consisting of shares of UPC common stock and cash. (Notice of Intent 3.) Specifically, Applicants state that upon receipt of approval by the shareholders of UPC and NSC, a decision by the Board approving the proposed transaction, and the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions, Ruby Merger Sub 1 Corporation would merge with and into NSC, and NSC would become a directly and wholly owned subsidiary of UPC. (
Applicants indicate that they will use 2023 as the base year for the impact analysis in the application and that they anticipate filing their application on or before January 29, 2026.
• Operating timetables (including special instructions and/or operating rule books), station lists or station books, and track charts or “track profiles” (including schematics that provide the number, length, and ownership status (
• These documents must be in machine-readable format to the extent available (including all necessary documentation). If current versions of any of the requested documents are not available, the most recent versions available should be submitted.
• GIS maps for the entire UP system and the entire NS system. These maps may include information used in the carriers' Positive Train Control (PTC) systems such as the track database file maintained in accordance with the Interoperable Train Control GIS.
• The maps must include, at minimum:
○ Track centerline points;
○ Operating division;
○ Operating subdivision;
○ Integer mileposts;
○ Crossings, including grade crossings;
○ Switches (turnout leg, switch orientation);
○ Permanent speed restrictions;
○ And the joint facilities layer for all geolocated joint facilities.
• For lines that do not have PTC installed, GIS maps that contain analogous information to the extent it is maintained in the normal course of business.
• All requested GIS documents must be in machine-readable format (
• A list of joint facilities and joint use arrangements (including but not limited to tracks, trackage rights agreements, haulage agreements, yards, terminals, joint or common ownership agreements, and lease agreements) on the entire UP system and the entire NS system.
• For each joint facility listed, Applicants must specify the joint facility type (
• To the extent that these facilities are geolocated on a GIS map, provide a GIS layer in the manner and format requested above.
• Applicants must also address whether any such joint use arrangements by their terms would no longer be operative following the proposed change in control.
• A list of interchange commitments—agreements that limit or may limit interchange with a third-party connecting carrier, whether by outright prohibition, per-car penalty, adjustment in financial terms, positive economic inducement, or other means—involving UP or NS.
• The list must specify the location of the interchange(s) and the involved carrier(s).
Any additional information required to support the application may be requested by the Board at a later date.
To support the Board's efficient processing of the additional information, the Board is providing technical procedures in the Appendix to this decision. These procedures shall apply to all evidentiary submissions filed in this proceeding.
1. The Board hereby ratifies the loan of Administrative Law Judge Soulikias to the office of administrative law judge in the Surface Transportation Board, under terms and conditions prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 3344 and 5 CFR 930.208, and the Board today approves her appointment as the Board's own action under the Constitution. This proceeding is assigned to Judge Soulikias for the handling of all discovery matters and initial resolution of all discovery disputes.
2. In addition to filing pleadings with the Board and serving copies on the Secretary of Transportation, the Attorney General of the United States, Applicants' representatives, and other parties of record, parties must send a copy of all filings and documents, including submissions already filed with the Board, to Judge Soulikias at
3. Judge Soulikias will be added to the service list in this proceeding and a copy of this decision will be served upon her.
4. A copy of this decision will be served on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), at Human Resource Solutions, Administrative Law Judge Program, 1900 E Street NW, Suite 2469, Washington, DC 20415-9400 and electronically at
5. The requirement that Applicants shall serve a conformed copy of an application by first-class mail upon all persons requesting a copy under 49 CFR 1180.4(c)(5)(v) is waived.
6. Applicants must submit the additional information described above by September 29, 2025.
7. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Primus, and Schultz.
1. All documents and evidence referenced in a filing must be specifically cited and included in the electronic workpapers.
2. All data and claims referenced in a filing should have citations to the relevant spreadsheet or document. These citations should be as specific as possible (
3. Each filing's analytical workpapers should be able to stand on their own, and not merely reference evidence from prior rounds of evidence (
4. No narrative information/argument should be included in the exhibits or the workpapers. All narrative information/argument should be consolidated and confined to the narrative.
5. Within each spreadsheet, provide a clear description of what that spreadsheet represents and a clear description of the rows and columns. For example, the top row should be headers with labels. Each row under that is a single record. Each column is a single variable. Do not leave cells empty: have a method for noting “No Answer,” “Null,” or “Missing” values so these cells are not mistaken as zeros or otherwise misinterpreted.
6. Raw data should be accompanied by a data dictionary with: (i) a list of field names and a definition for each field contained in the data set; (ii) the meaning of each encoded value (
7. Spreadsheets which contain raw or tabular data sets (
8. A workpaper index describing the contents of each file and the direction of data flowing between files should be included (
9. Include an explanation for any metric calculated for use and cited in the narrative or an analytical work paper. The explanation can be written in the narrative or analysis itself, in a footnote, or by some other clear method of notation. The explanation should include the name of the relevant data file(s) and the names of variables used in the calculation and outline the mathematical formulae used to calculate the metric. This requirement pertains only to source narrative or work papers where the calculation originates. References to calculations made in other work papers or analysis should cite the subject work paper.
10. In subsequent evidentiary rounds, when using another party's calculation or workpaper as a starting point, corrections or modifications to values, methodologies, or calculations should be clearly indicated and explained. Changes to numbers submitted in prior rounds of evidence must be clearly explained and supported, and include any formula used to calculate those changes. File names of modified files should use the original filename and be appended with appropriate modification designation (
11. To the maximum extent practicable, links between spreadsheets should be used. If links are not practicable, hard-coded numbers may be used, but parties must include references to the relevant source document or method of calculation. In derivative (non-base) spreadsheets, numbers derived by formula and subsequently hard-coded should be clearly and consistently designated as hard-coded.
12. Use consistent corporate names, financial quarters, and conversion factors across workpapers and the narrative.
13. Avoid using colors and comments which may not migrate into new files. Instead, add another column with the information that needs to be conveyed. If there is a compelling need to employ color coding within workpapers, color coding should be consistent and fully explained with a color-coding key and follow Section 508 guidelines.
14. Submissions may include a password protected filing (
15. Indicate the version number of any software, packages, or software add-ons used to generate the evidence (
16. Any raw tabular data or database tables used for traffic analysis should be provided, including a step-by-step guide (to include visual snapshots that capture manual steps) used to load those data into a database format (
17. Maps and illustrations (
18. Use machine-readable and open-source formats, when practicable, to help support downstream interoperability between information systems and the dissemination of information to the public, as appropriate, without the need for costly retrofitting. Python and SQL are the preferred software packages for data analysis.
19. As a best practice, all empirical work should be submitted in enough detail so that Board staff can identify the methodology used to conduct the analysis and can review the results of the analysis.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comments on the release of 0.9 acres of land at Robertson Airport, Plainville, Connecticut. The FAA is providing notice of a release of Federal obligations for 0.9 acres of landside airport property which also encompasses 0.4 acres for slope easements and a drainage right of way at Robertson Airport, Plainville, Connecticut, for the purpose of a planned extension of a multi-use public recreation trail.
Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2025.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Lisa J. Lesperance, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 1200 District Ave., Room 3000, Burlington, MA 01803.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to: Michael T. Paulhus, Town Manager, Town of Plainville, One Central Square, Plainville, CT 06062-1955.
Ms. Lisa J. Lesperance, Lead Community Planner, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803. Telephone: 781-238-7616,
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release of all FAA obligations for 0.9 acres of landside airport property at Robertson Airport (4B8) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The Town Manager has requested from the FAA the release of airport property be released for sale. The FAA determined the request to release and sell property at Robertson Airport (4B8) meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the release and sale of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
This release does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport properties nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA is considering a proposal to change 4.044 acres of airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the sale of airport property located at Greene County/Lewis A. Jackson Regional Airport. The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use. The future use of the property is for a municipal fire station. The land is located in the southwest part of the airport adjacent to N. Valley Road. There are no impacts to the airport by allowing the Greene County Regional Airport Authority to dispose of the property.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2025.
All requisite and supporting documentation will be made available for review by appointment at the FAA Detroit Airports District Office, Alex Erskine, Program Manager, 11677 South Wayne Road, Romulus, MI 48174, Telephone: (734) 229-2900/Fax: (734) 229-2950, and Allie Barrett, Manager, Greene County—Lewis A. Jackson Regional Airport, 140 N. Valley Rd., Xenia, OH 45385, (937) 376-8107.
Written comments on the Sponsor's request may be submitted using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Alex Erskine, Program Manager, 11677 South Wayne Road, Romulus, MI 48174, Telephone: (734) 229-2900/Fax: (734) 229-2950.
In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
The vacant land consists of a portion of one (1) acquired parcel. This parcel was acquired under Airport Improvement Program grant 3-39-0091-01. The future use of the property is for a municipal fire station.
The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property will be in accordance with section 47107(c)(2)(b) of Title 49, United States Code.
This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of the subject airport property at the Greene County-Lewis A. Jackson Regional Airport, Xenia, Ohio from federal land covenants, subject to a reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
BEING 4.044 ACRES OUT OF A 12.834-ACRE TRACT AS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 231, PAGE 731 OF THE GREENE COUNTY DEED RECORDS, SITUATE IN VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY #577, BEAVERCREEK TOWNSHIP, GREENE COUNTY, OHIO AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Commencing for reference at the southwest corner of an original 166.455-acre tract of land owned by Greene County Regional Airport Authority as conveyed in Official Record 3567, Page 158 and also the southwest corner of Virginia Military Survey 577;
thence, North 26°-36′-17″ West, 1356.24 feet, along the west line of said original 166.455-acre tract to a point;
thence, North 25°-46′-42″ West, 619.87 feet, along the west line of said original 166.455-acre tract to a point at the southwest corner of a tract of land owned by Valley Springs Farm Company as described in Official Record 632, Page 619;
thence, North 64°-14′-56″ East, 3404.16 feet, along the south line of said Valley Springs Farm Company tract to an iron pin with cap set;
thence, South 25°-27′-25″ East, 80.71 feet, along the east line of said 166.455-acre Greene County Regional Airport Authority tract to a point and being the principal place of beginning of the tract herein conveyed;
thence, North 63°-43′-10″ East, 521.31 feet, along the southeast line of said 166.455-acre Greene County Regional Airport Authority tract to a point on the west right-of-way line of N. Valley Road;
thence, on a curve to the left with a radius of 1250.00 feet, an arc distance of 297.92 feet, a delta angle of 13°-39′-21″, and a chord bearing South 13°-20′-50″ East, 297.22 feet, to an iron pin with cap set;
thence, South 20°-10′-30″ East, 80.93 feet, to an iron pin with cap set on a new division line;
thence, South 64°-06′-40″ West, 451.47 feet, to an iron pin with cap set on the east line of a 41.322-acre tract of land owned by Greene County Regional Airport Authority as described in Instrument #2020012798;
thence, North 25°-27′-25″ West, 367.10 feet, along the west line of said 41.322-acre Greene County Regional Airport Authority tract and its extension to the principal place of beginning.
Containing 4.044 acres more or less and all being subject to any legal highways and easements of record.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of airport release and permanent closure.
The FAA approved the release and closure of Lake Texoma State Park Airport at Lake Texoma State Park in Kingston, Oklahoma on July 1, 2025. The FAA received written notice from the Oklahoma Department of Tourism and the Oklahoma Department of Aerospace and Aeronautics (co-sponsors) on July 1, 2024, requesting the airport be removed from the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems for the purpose of abandoning and closing Lake Texoma State Park Airport. The FAA hereby publishes notice of full release and permanent closure of Lake Texoma State Park Airport.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2025.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Denson Stasher, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports District Office, ASW-630, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.
The permanent closure of the airport is effective as of September 30, 2025.
Mr. Olufemi Adeoye, Assistant Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports District Office, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177, Telephone: (817) 222-5986, Email:
The FAA received written notice from the Oklahoma Department of Tourism and the Oklahoma Department of Aerospace and Aeronautics (co-sponsors) requesting the permanent closure of Lake Texoma State Park Airport.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the FMCSA announces its plan to submit the information collection request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. This ICR relates to the planned information collection (IC) titled: “Crash Causal Factors Program: Heavy-Duty Truck Study Data Collection.” This IC supports the data collection phase of the Heavy-Duty Truck Study, which was mandated by Congress in Section 23006 of the Infrastructure and Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This IC will collect data from the State jurisdictions that were identified as part of a nationally representative study sample of fatal crashes involving heavy-duty trucks (Class 7 and 8 trucks).
Comments on this notice must be received on or before October 27, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2025-0065 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jenny Guarino, Chief, Crash Data Analytics Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4143;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2025-0065), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
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
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260), was signed into law, appropriating $30 million to FMCSA to “carry out [a] study of the cause[s] of large truck crashes.” On November 14, 2021, the President signed into law IIJA (Pub. L. 117-58) which contains requirements for a larger study under Section 23006, “Study of Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Causation.” The requirements under Section 23006 define the scope of the study to include all
Section 23006(b)(1) of IIJA requires the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) to “carry out a comprehensive study to determine the causes of, and contributing factors to, crashes that involve a commercial motor vehicle.” Section 23006(b)(2) further requires the Secretary to:
A. Identify data requirements, data collection procedures, reports, and any other measures that can be used to improve the ability of States and the Secretary to evaluate future crashes involving CMVs;
B. Monitor crash trends and identify causes and contributing factors; and
C. Develop effective safety improvement policies and programs.
To meet the requirements of Section 23006, FMCSA established the Crash Causal Factors Program (CCFP). Through CCFP, FMCSA is pursuing a nuanced understanding of crashes involving CMVs so that policymakers, law enforcement agencies, regulators, and other interested parties can implement effective crash prevention strategies and programs.
This IC will collect data aimed at identifying key driver, vehicle, motor carrier, and environmental factors that may contribute to fatal crashes involving heavy-duty trucks.
Data will be collected from 30 State jurisdictions that were identified as key sampling locations for a nationally representative study sample of 2,000 fatal crashes involving heavy-duty trucks. To ensure the IC collects at least 2,000 fatal crashes, FMCSA is targeting 3,333 fatal crashes. This number is based on a safety margin, or multiplier, of 1.667 that takes into account historical crash data and findings from the surveys conducted under the IC titled “Crash Causal Factors Program: Knowledge of Systems and Processes” (OMB Control No. 2126-0079). This target of 3,333 fatal crashes is the basis for the maximum conceivable burden and the detailed burden estimates below.
FMCSA selected sample States based on three study criteria: (1) their investigative capability; (2) their frequency of State-investigated crashes based on historical data; and (3) their location and how it would contribute to the geographic diversity of the sample. In addition to collecting data from sample States, this IC will accept data from States that are not part of the study sample but would like to participate. These States are referred to as non-sample jurisdictions. To provide an estimate for the fatal crash submissions by non-sample jurisdictions, FMCSA totaled the historical number of fatal crashes involving heavy-duty trucks that they typically investigate in a year (2,082)
After the data collection phase is complete, the data will be analyzed to identify crash trends and inform the development of effective, targeted safety policies and programs to help prevent crashes. The CCFP is part of DOT and FMCSA's heightened effort to address the rising number of fatal crashes and reduce roadway fatalities.
FMCSA will collect data for this IC using FMCSA's SafeSpect system, which Federal and State Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) inspectors, investigators, and analysts currently use to upload motor carrier and CMV inspection and investigation data, as well as a subset of crash data for FMCSA-reportable crashes. FMCSA is developing a new CCFP Reporting Module in SafeSpect to capture the detailed crash data necessary to support the Heavy-Duty Truck Study. This will include an electronic Heavy-Duty Truck Study Initial Incident Form, complete police crash report (PCR) data, and detailed post-crash investigation and reconstruction data. The extent of automated information collection will vary by data type and by State, as each State has its own processes for collecting and storing PCR, post-crash investigation, and reconstruction data. Details about data collection by source are provided below.
Other data will be collected through confidential interviews with individuals and companies involved in the crash. These interviews will be conducted by BTS and protected under BTS's confidentiality statute and the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (Pub. L. 107-347, Title V, 116 Stat. 2962). More information on this partnership is available in [insert name of BTS ICR, OMB Control No. 2138-XXXX].
Inability to collect data for this study would jeopardize the Agency's goals of gaining a nuanced understanding of the causal factors contributing to crashes involving heavy-duty trucks today and building a foundation for ongoing data collection and analysis.
FMCSA intends to collect data over the course of two years with a target start date of early 2026. Collection and receipt of data may continue beyond the 2-year study period based on State-specific agreements and the renewal of this ICR.
At the conclusion of the study, a final report and supporting database with aggregate, anonymized results will be published. The Agency intends to release partial data findings and analysis prior to releasing the final report.
Four trainings will be available to support data collection for the Heavy-Duty Truck Study: (1) the
It will take the CMV Data Analyst/Designated Personnel, MCSAP CMV Inspector, and Post-Crash Investigator/Reconstructionist a total of 14 hours to collect data for a single fatal crash. This breaks down into an estimate of 4 hours for the CMV Data Analyst/Designated Personnel, 2 hours for the MCSAP CMV Inspector, and 8 hours for the Post-Crash Investigator/Reconstructionist. This estimate is the same for sample and non-sample jurisdictions.
As mentioned above, the Agency will provide four trainings to support study data collection. They will only be offered once prior to the 2-year data collection period. In total, the trainings will amount to 91 hours. The estimates for each individual training are provided below.
(1) ANSI D16 and FARS Awareness Training, 22 hours.
(2) CCFP Data Coding and Entry Training, 28 hours.
(3) MCSAP CMV Inspector Webinar Training, 1 hour.
(4) Post-Crash Investigation Training, 40 hours.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
○ 30 participants × 22 hours for the ANSI and FARS Awareness Training = 660 hours.
○ 30 participants × 28 hours for the CCFP Data Coding and Entry Training = 840 hours.
•
○ 300 participants × 1 hour MCSAP CMV Inspector Webinar Training = 300 hours.
•
○ 60 participants × 40 hours Post-Crash Investigator/Reconstructionist Training = 2,400 hours.
•
○ 5 participants × 22 hours for the ANSI and FARS Awareness Training = 110 hours.
○ 5 participants × 28 hours for the CCFP Data Coding and Entry Training = 140 hours.
•
○ 50 participants × 1 hour for the MCSAP CMV Inspector Webinar Training = 50 hours.
•
○ 5 participants × 40 hours Post-Crash Investigator/Reconstructionist Training = 200 hours.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum (HVRM) petitioned FRA for an extension of relief from certain regulations concerning an “engineer for an hour” program.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by September 29, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Kurt Erickson, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Operating Practices Division, telephone: 443-257-8218, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated June 15, 2025 HVRM petitioned FRA for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 240 (Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2009-0023.
HVRM requests extended relief from 49 CFR 240.201(d),
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by September 29, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that the American Public
FRA must receive comments on the petition by September 29, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Harry Weisinger, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-493-0036, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated June 16, 2025, APTA petitioned FRA for a special approval of an alternative standard to certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 238 (Passenger Equipment Safety Standards). FRA assigned the petition Docket No. FRA-2025-0260.
Specifically, APTA requests approval of an alternative standard to § 238.309(b)(4),
With this petition, APTA intends to begin an age exploration program, in which a test committee (including the original equipment manufacturer and FRA representatives), would test the brake components of GTW and FLIRT MUs. Testing of 2 vehicles per type would be conducted every half year up to 5 years of service,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by September 29, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
MARAD invites public comments on its intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 2133-0529 (Application for Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for Small Passenger Vessels) is used to identify the effect of potential foreign-built small passenger vessel coastwise operations on U.S. vessel builders and coastwise trade businesses. Since the last renewal there was an increase in the total respondents, responses, burden hours and cost to respondents. MARAD is required to publish this notice in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Patricia Hagerty, (202) 366-0903, Office of Cargo and Commercial Sealift, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Email:
A 60-day
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
MARAD invites public comments on its intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 2133- 0509 (Maritime Administration Annual Service Obligation Compliance Report) is used to determine if a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) or a State Maritime Academy (SMA) Student Incentive Payment (SIP) program, is complying with the terms of the service obligation. There are no changes since the last renewal. MARAD is required to publish this notice in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Danielle Bennett, 202-366-7618, Office of Maritime Labor and Training, W23-458, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room, Washington, DC 20590, Email:
A 60-day
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Municipal Securities Dealers and Government Securities Brokers and Dealers—Registration and Withdrawal.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by September 29, 2025.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should also be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by September 29, 2025.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Dorothy Glasgow, 202-461-1084,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by September 29, 2025.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Dorothy Glasgow, 202-461-1084,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by September 29, 2025.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Dorothy Glasgow, 202-461-1084,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by September 29, 2025.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Dorothy Glasgow, 202-461-1084,
The holder thereby covenants or warrants against the acts of the holder and those claiming under the holder (
It vests in the Secretary or will entitle the Secretary to such title as is or would be acceptable to prudent lending institutions, informed buyers, title companies, and attorneys, generally, in the community in which the property is situated.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by September 29, 2025.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Dorothy Glasgow, 202-461-1084,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10, that the National Research Advisory Council (NRAC) will hold a meeting on Monday, September 15, 2025, at the Rocky Mountain Regional Medical Center at 1700 North Wheeling Street. Aurora, Colorado 80045. A virtual attendance option is available via Microsoft Teams. The teleconference number is 1-872-701-0185, Phone Conference ID: 198 255 794# or the meeting link is:
The purpose of NRAC is to advise the Secretary on research conducted by the Veterans Health Administration, including policies and programs targeting the high priority of Veterans' health care needs.
The meeting will be held at 11:00 a.m. and end at approximately 4:30 p.m. Mountain Standard Time. This meeting is open to the public and will include time reserved for public comments at the end of the meeting. The public comment period will be 30 minutes. Individual stakeholders will be given 3 to 5 minutes to express their comments.
On September 15, 2025, the agenda will include a summary of the previous meeting, final actions regarding NRAC's recommendation to the Secretary regarding 18 U.S.C. 208, conflict of interest; presentations from the NRAC subcommittees; and public comments.
Members of the public may submit written statements for review by the NRAC in advance of the meeting. Public comments may be received no later than
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
Unlike most nonimmigrant classifications, which are admitted for a fixed time period, aliens in the F (academic student), J (exchange visitor), and most I (representatives of foreign information media) classifications, with limited exceptions, are currently admitted into the United States for the period of time that they are complying with the terms and conditions of their nonimmigrant classification (“duration of status”). The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to amend its regulations by changing the admission period in the F, J, and I classifications from duration of status to an admission for a fixed time period.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2025.
You may submit comments on the entirety of this rule, which must be identified by Docket No. ICEB-2025-0001, through the following method:
•
Comments on the information collection may be submitted to the same docket as the NPRM or as described in the “submitting comments” section below. In addition, all comments on the information collection must include the OMB Control Number in the body of the comments.
Comments submitted in a manner other than the Federal eRulemaking Portal, including emails or letters sent to the Department of Homeland Security (the Department or DHS), will not be considered comments, and will not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS cannot accept any hand delivered or couriered comments, nor any comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs, DVDs, and USB drives. If you cannot submit your material using
Office of Regulatory Affairs and Policy, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536. Telephone 202-732-6960 (not a toll-free number) (for questions only—no comments will be accepted at this phone number).
DHS encourages all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting data, views, comments, and arguments on all aspects of this notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments providing the most assistance to DHS will reference a specific portion of this rule, explain the reason for any recommended change and include the data, information, or authority that supports the recommended change. See the
All comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. If you submit comments, you must include the DHS docket number for this rulemaking (ICEB-2025-0001), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. Include data, information, or the authority that supports the comment. Your comments must be submitted online by 11:59 p.m. of the last day of the comment period.
•
•
•
DHS will post your comments to the federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
To view comments, as well as documents referenced in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Studying and participating in exchange visitor and academic programs in the United States offers aliens access to world-renowned, individualized instructional and educational programs. Similarly, the United States allows foreign news and media members access to the United States as part of their foreign employment. Millions of aliens have come to the United States on a temporary basis in the F (academic student),
The significant increase in the volume of F academic students, J exchange visitors, and I foreign information media representatives poses a challenge to the Department's ability to monitor and oversee these nonimmigrants while they are in the United States. During the length of their stay for D/S, a period of admission without a specified end date, these nonimmigrants are not required to have direct interaction with DHS, except for a few limited instances, such as when applying for employment authorization for optional practical training (OPT) or for reinstatement if they have failed to maintain status. Admission for D/S, in general, does not afford immigration officers enough predetermined opportunities to directly verify that aliens granted such nonimmigrant statuses are engaging only in those activities their respective classifications authorize while they are in the United States. In turn, this has undermined DHS's ability to effectively enforce compliance with the statutory inadmissibility grounds related to unlawful presence and has created incentives for fraud and abuse.
For F and J visa holders, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) specifically states that aliens must have a residence in a foreign country which they have no intention of abandoning and seek to enter the United States temporarily.
The events of 9/11 highlighted the potential for abuse of the student visa.
SEVIS ensures government agencies have essential data related to nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors to preserve national security. SEVIS also implements Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law 104-208 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1372), which requires DHS to collect current information from nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors continually during their stay in the United States. In addition, section 416 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56 (amending IIRIRA sec. 641), mandated full implementation and expansion of SEVIS.
Given these mandates and concerns, DHS believes that the admission of F, J, and I nonimmigrants for D/S is not appropriate. With this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), DHS proposes to replace the D/S framework for F, J, and I nonimmigrants with an admission period with a specific date upon which an authorized stay ends. Nonimmigrants who would like to stay in the United States beyond their fixed date of admission would need to apply directly to DHS for an extension of stay (EOS).
Replacing admissions for D/S with admissions for a fixed time period of authorized stay is consistent with most other nonimmigrant classifications,
These changes would ensure that DHS has an effective mechanism to periodically and directly assess whether these nonimmigrants are complying with the conditions of their classifications and U.S. immigration laws, and to obtain timely and accurate information about the activities these aliens have engaged in and plan to engage in during their temporary stay in the United States. If immigration officers discover a nonimmigrant in one of these classifications has overstayed or otherwise violated his or her status, the proposed changes may result in the alien beginning to accrue unlawful presence for purposes of unlawful presence-related statutory grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and (C)(i) of the INA. DHS believes this greater oversight would deter F, J, or I nonimmigrants from engaging in fraud and abuse and strengthen the integrity of these nonimmigrant classifications.
DHS believes that the provisions of each new regulatory amendment function independently of other provisions. However, to protect DHS's goals for proposing this rule, DHS proposes to add regulatory text stating that the provisions be severable so that, if necessary, the regulations may continue to function even if a particular provision is rendered inoperable.
DHS proposes the following substantive changes:
• Amend 8 CFR 214.1, Requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of status, by:
○ Striking all references to D/S for F, J, and I nonimmigrants;
○ Describing requirements for F and J nonimmigrants seeking admission, including after travel abroad and those approved for OPT and academic training;
○ Updating the cross reference and clarifying the standards for admission in the automatic extension visa validity provisions that cover F and J nonimmigrants applying at a port of entry (POE) after an absence not exceeding 30 days solely in a contiguous territory or adjacent islands;
○ Outlining the process for EOS applications for F, J, and I nonimmigrants;
○ Specifying the effect of departure while an F or J nonimmigrant's application for an EOS in F or J nonimmigrant status and/or employment authorization (and an associated employment authorization document (EAD)) is pending;
○ Providing procedures specific to the transition from D/S to admission for
○ Replacing references to specific form names and numbers with general language, to account for future changes to form names and numbers.
• Amend 8 CFR 214.2, Special requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of status, by:
○ Setting the authorized admission and extension periods for F and J nonimmigrants up to the program length, not to exceed a 4-year period;
○ For F-1 students changing educational objectives or transferring to an SEVP-certified school, requiring that the student complete his or her first academic year of a program of study at the school that initially issued his or her Form I-20 or successor form, unless an exception is authorized by SEVP;
○ Prohibiting F-1 students at the graduate education level from changing programs at any point during a program of study.
○ Outlining procedures and requirements for F-1 nonimmigrants who change educational objectives while in F-1 status;
○ Requiring any nonimmigrant who has completed a program at one educational level to only be allowed to begin another program at a higher educational level while in F-1 status and prohibiting a change to the same or a lower educational level while in F-1 status;
○ Decreasing from 60 to 30 days the allowed period for F-1 nonimmigrants to prepare to depart from the United States after completion of a course of study or authorized period of post-completion practical training;
○ Providing for collection of biometric information in conjunction with an EOS application for F, J, and I nonimmigrants as may be required by 8 CFR 103.16;
○ Limiting language training students to an aggregate 24-month period of stay, including breaks and an annual vacation;
○ Providing that a delay in completing one's program by the program end date specified on the Form I-20, which includes but is not limited to delays caused by academic probation or suspension or a student's repeated inability or unwillingness to complete his or her course of study, generally is an unacceptable reason for program extensions for F nonimmigrants;
○ Allowing F nonimmigrants whose timely filed EOS applications remain pending after their admission period has expired to receive an auto-extension of their current authorization for on-campus and off-campus employment based on severe economic hardship resulting from emergent circumstances under existing 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v). The length of the auto-extension of employment authorization would be up to 240 days or the end date of the
○ Replacing D/S for I nonimmigrants with admission for a fixed time period until they complete the activities or assignments consistent with the I classification, not to exceed 240 days (with the exception of some I aliens from the People's Republic of China), with an EOS available for I nonimmigrants who can meet specified EOS requirements;
○ Codifying the definition of a foreign media organization for I nonimmigrant status, consistent with long-standing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Department of State (DOS) practice;
○ Updating the evidence an alien must submit to demonstrate eligibility for the I nonimmigrant classification;
○ Clarifying that J-1 nonimmigrants who are employment authorized with a specific employer incident to status, continue to be authorized for such employment for up to 240 days under the existing regulatory provision at 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), if their status expires while their timely filed EOS application is pending, whereas J-2 dependents, who must apply for employment authorization as evidenced by an EAD, do not have the benefit of continued work authorization once the EAD expires;
○ Clarifying that I nonimmigrants are authorized to continue working in the United States for their foreign employer, under 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), while their timely filed EOS application is pending for up to 240 days;
○ Striking all references to “duration of status” and/or “duration of employment” for the F, J, and I nonimmigrant classifications; and
○ Including a severability clause. In the event that any provision of this rule is not implemented for whatever reason, DHS proposes that the remaining provisions be implemented in accordance with the stated purposes of this rule.
• Amend 8 CFR 248.1, Eligibility, by:
○ Establishing requirements to determine the period of stay for F or J nonimmigrants whose change of status application was approved before the Final Rule's effective date and who depart the United States, then seek admission after the Final Rule's effective date; and
○ Codifying the long-standing policy under which DHS deems abandoned an application to change to another nonimmigrant status, including F or J status, if the alien who timely filed the application departs the United States while the application is pending.
• Amend 8 CFR 274a.12, Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment, by updating the employment authorization provisions to incorporate the revisions in 8 CFR 214.2.
Currently, aliens in the F (academic student), J (exchange visitor), and most I (representatives of foreign information media) nonimmigrant classifications are admitted to the United States under the D/S framework. However, this framework poses a challenge to DHS' ability to efficiently monitor and oversee these nonimmigrants to assess whether these nonimmigrants are complying with the terms and conditions of their status and whether they present national security concerns. To address these vulnerabilities, DHS proposes to replace D/S with an admission for a fixed time period for F, J, and I nonimmigrants. Admitting aliens in the F, J, and I classifications for a fixed period of time would require all F, J, and I nonimmigrants who wish to remain in the United States beyond their specific authorized admission period to apply for authorization to extend their stay with USCIS if in the United States, thus requiring periodic assessments by DHS in order for the alien to remain in the United States for a longer period. This change would impose incremental costs on F, J, and I nonimmigrants as well as schools and exchange visitor program sponsors, but would in turn protect the integrity of the F, J, and I programs by having immigration officers evaluate and assess the appropriate length of stay for these nonimmigrants.
Over a 10-year period of analysis, DHS estimates the proposed rule would have annualized costs ranging from $390.3 million to $392.4 million (using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively) when considering both U.S. and non-U.S. parties. When considering U.S. parties only, annualized costs range from $86.3 million to $88.1 million (using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively).
The authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) to implement the regulatory amendments in this rule can be found in various provisions of the immigration laws. Section 102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103(a)(1) and (3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (3), charge the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States. Section 214(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a), gives the Secretary the authority to prescribe, by regulation, the time and conditions of admission of any alien as a nonimmigrant, including F, J, and I nonimmigrant aliens.
Section 248 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1258, permits DHS to allow certain nonimmigrants to change their status from one nonimmigrant status to another nonimmigrant status, with certain exceptions, as long as they continue to maintain their current nonimmigrant status and are not inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i), relating to unlawful presence. Similar to extensions of stay, change of status adjudications are discretionary determinations.
Finally, the INA establishes who may be admitted as F, J, or I nonimmigrants. Specifically, section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i), established the F nonimmigrant classification for, among others, bona fide students qualified to pursue a full course of study who wish to enter the United States temporarily, who have no intention of abandoning their residence in a foreign country, and solely for the purpose of pursuing a full course of study at an academic or language training school certified by SEVP, as well as for the spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21of such aliens.
Section 101(a)(15)(J) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), established the J nonimmigrant classification for aliens who wish to come to the United States temporarily and have no intention of abandoning their residence in a foreign country, to participate in exchange visitor programs designated by the DOS, as well as for the spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21of such aliens in certain J-1 categories.
Section 101(a)(15)(I) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(I), established, upon a basis of reciprocity, the I nonimmigrant classification for bona fide representatives of foreign information media (such as press, radio, film, print) seeking to enter the United States to engage in such vocation, as well as for the spouses and children of such aliens.
Within DHS, SEVP is administered by ICE. SEVP is authorized to administer the program to collect information related to nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors under various statutory authorities. Section 641 of IIRIRA authorizes the creation of a program to collect current and ongoing information provided by schools and exchange visitor programs regarding F and J nonimmigrants during the course of their stays in the United States, using electronic reporting technology where practicable. Consistent with this statutory authority, DHS manages these programs pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2 (HSPD-2), Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies (Oct. 29, 2001), as amended, (
Section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i), permits aliens who are bona fide students to temporarily be admitted to the United States solely for the purpose for pursuing a full course of study at an established college, university, seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary school, or other academic language training program. Principal applicants are categorized as F-1 nonimmigrant aliens and their spouses and children who may accompany or follow to join as F-2 dependents.
From 1973 to 1979, F students were admitted for one year and could be granted an EOS in increments of up to 12 months if they established that they were maintaining status.
Subsequently, between January 23, 1981, and October 29, 1991, the INS amended the regulations addressing admission periods for F-1 students four more times.
On April 5, 1983, D/S was reinstituted with, among other changes, the implementation of new notification procedures for transfers between schools, improved reporting requirements for Designated School Officials (DSOs),
On April 22, 1987, a final rule outlined medical and academic reasons that would allow F-1 students to drop below a full-time course of study while remaining in D/S status, and clarified when an EOS or reinstatement must be requested.
Finally, in 1991, the regulations were revised to implement Section 221(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90), Public Law 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, which established a three-year off-campus program for F-1 students,
The J nonimmigrant classification was created in 1961 by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, 75 Stat. 527 (22 U.S.C. 2451,
Prior to 1985, J exchange visitors were granted an initial admission for the period of their program up to one year.
A prospective exchange visitor must be sponsored by a DOS-designated program sponsor to be admitted to the United States in the J nonimmigrant classification and participate in an exchange visitor program. The DOS designated sponsor will issue a prospective J exchange visitor a Form DS-2019, Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status. The DS-2019 permits a prospective exchange visitor to apply for a J-1 nonimmigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad or seek admission as a J-1 nonimmigrant at a port of entry. A J-1 exchange visitor is admitted into the United States for D/S, which is the length of his or her exchange visitor program.
Extensions of J exchange visitor programs are governed by DOS regulations.
Section 101(a)(15)(I) of the INA defines the I classification as, upon a basis of reciprocity, an alien who is a bona fide representative of foreign press, radio, film, or other foreign information media who seeks to enter the United States solely to engage in such vocation, and the spouse and children of such a representative, if accompanying or following to join him or her. Most nonimmigrant foreign information media representatives (with the exception of those presenting a passport issued by the People's Republic of China) are currently admitted for the duration of their employment. They are not permitted to change their information medium or employer until they obtain permission from USCIS.
From 1973 to 1985, aliens admitted to the United States in I nonimmigrant status were admitted for a period of 1 year with the possibility of extensions.
DHS welcomes F academic students, J exchange visitors, and I representatives of foreign information media, but it also acknowledges that the sheer size of the population complicates oversight and vetting functions. Since 1980, the number of F nonimmigrant students admitted into the United States has more than sextupled.
The Department uses SEVIS, a web-based system, to maintain information regarding: SEVP-certified schools; F-1 students studying in the United States (and their F-2 dependents); M-1 students enrolled in vocational programs in the United States (and their M-2 dependents); DOS-designated Exchange Visitor Program sponsors; and J-1 Exchange Visitor Program participants (and their J-2 dependents). SEVIS is necessary for national security and is consistent with the requirements in IIRIRA, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the 9/11 Commission Report.
Employees of educational institutions and program sponsors, specifically DSOs and ROs, play a large role in SEVIS. They are responsible for monitoring students and exchange visitors, accurately entering information about the students' and exchange visitors' activities into SEVIS, and properly determining whether the student or exchange visitor's SEVIS record should remain in active status or change to reflect a change in circumstances.
Additionally, DHS expects this change would deter and prevent fraud, as a requirement to check-in directly with an immigration officer is inherently likely to deter exploitation of perceived vulnerabilities in the F and J nonimmigrant classifications. The same benefits of direct evaluation, better recordkeeping, and fraud prevention also would apply to the I population.
While the F program can provide significant benefits to academic institutions and local communities, the Department is aware that the F-1 program is subject to fraud, exploitation, and abuse. Since 2008, multiple school owners and others have been criminally prosecuted for “pay-to-stay” fraud, in which school officials, in return for cash payments, falsely report that F-1 students who do not attend school are maintaining their student status.
Apart from concerns about DSOs and school owners involved in fraudulent schemes, DHS also has concerns about the actions of the aliens themselves. Some aliens have used the F classification to reside in the United States for decades by continuously enrolling in or transferring between schools, a practice facilitated by the D/S framework.
The use of the F classification to remain in the United States for decades raises doubts that the alien's intention was to stay in the United States temporarily, as required by the INA.
Further, while some school owners and school executives have faced legal consequences for their violation of the law, nonimmigrants admitted for D/S generally do not accrue unlawful presence for purposes of the 3- and 10-year bars described in INA 212(a)(9)(B) and (C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B) and (C), unless an immigration officer finds they have violated their status in the context of adjudicating an immigration benefit request, or an immigration judge orders them excluded, deported, or removed.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported on DHS's concerns about DSOs and nonimmigrant students. In 2019, GAO and ICE published a report identifying fraud risks to SEVP related to managing school recertification and program training. The report included vulnerabilities associated with involving school owners and DSOs in overseeing the maintenance of status of F-1 students.
DHS believes it can mitigate fraud risks in part through, as this rule proposes, setting the authorized admission and extension periods for F nonimmigrants as the length of the F nonimmigrant's specific program, not to exceed a 4-year period. It would establish a mechanism for immigration officers to assess these nonimmigrants at defined periods (such as when applying for an EOS in the United States beyond a 4-year admission period) and determine whether they are complying with the conditions of their classification. Immigration officers receive background checks, clearances, and training before DHS authorizes them to implement the nation's immigration laws, which includes as part of adjudicating the application, whether nonimmigrants meet the requirements to extend their stay, whether a student has violated his or her nonimmigrant status without the DSO's awareness or whether DSOs are engaging in fraud by not requiring students to attend classes or by falsifying documents. Immigration officers are further trained to assess applications for fraud indicators and conduct reviews and vetting that may assist in the detection of fraud or abuse. This would allow further opportunity for DHS to identify and hold accountable aliens who violate their F-1 status, as well as their educational institutions. DHS currently employs out-of-cycle reviews and recertification of SEVP-certified schools outlined in 8 CFR 214.3(h) to ensure the school's compliance with regulatory recordkeeping and reporting requirements. DHS may also conduct on-site reviews of schools at any time, which may lead to withdrawal of SEVP certification upon findings of noncompliance or regulatory violations. Under the current D/S framework, DHS might not detect an individual F-1 status violation for an extended period if the student stays enrolled in a school, does not seek readmission to the United States, and does not apply for additional immigration benefits. If DHS makes periodic assessments to verify that F-1 students are maintaining their student status, DHS could better detect and mitigate against these violations as well as violations by their school.
Finally, the D/S framework, because it reduces opportunities for direct vetting of foreign academic students by immigration officers, creates opportunities for foreign adversaries to exploit the F-1 program and undermine U.S. national security. An open education environment in the United States offers enormous benefits, but it also places research universities and the nation at risk for economic, academic, or military espionage by foreign students. Foreign adversaries are using progressively sophisticated and resourceful methods to exploit the U.S. educational environment, including well-documented cases of espionage through the student program.
DHS believes that replacing admissions for D/S for F-1 students with admission for a fixed time period would help mitigate these national security risks by ensuring an immigration official directly and periodically vets applicants for extensions of stay and, in so doing, confirms they are engaged only in activities consistent with their student status. F-1 nonimmigrants applying for EOS will also be required to establish they are admissible, and failure to do so will result in denial of the EOS. Admissibility grounds are complex and are properly assessed by a trained DHS officer. Such an assessment is not currently made when F-1 nonimmigrants apply for an extension of their program with their institution.
DHS believes that the national security risks posed by D/S admissions for individuals admitted under the J classification are similar to those posed by the F classification.
There are multiple examples of ongoing national security threats posed by J nonimmigrants. For example, in September 2019, a stark illustration of state-sponsored efforts to illegally obtain U.S. technology emerged when the FBI charged Chinese government official Zhongsan Liu with conspiracy to fraudulently procure U.S. research scholar visas for Chinese officials whose actual purpose was to recruit U.S. scientists for high technology development programs within China.
Additionally, in December 2019, Zaosong Zheng, a 29-year-old graduate student in J-1 status participating in an exchange visitor program at Harvard University, was stopped at Boston Logan International Airport. Federal agents determined he was a “high risk for possibly exporting undeclared biological material” after finding 21 vials of brown liquid wrapped in a plastic bag inside a sock in his checked luggage; typed and handwritten notes indicated “that [the exchange visitor] . . . was knowingly gathering and collecting intellectual property . . . possibly on behalf of the Chinese government.”
In January 2020, Yanqing Ye, was charged with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy after Ye falsely identified herself on her J-1 visa application as a
In June 2020, a Chinese national who entered the United States on a J-1 visa to conduct research at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport while attempting to return to China and charged with visa fraud. According to court documents, he allegedly is an officer with the PRC PLA and provided fraudulent information about his military service in his visa application. He allegedly was instructed by his military lab supervisor to bring back to China information about the lab at UCSF.
In 2025, J-1 Chinese Research Scholar at the University of Michigan was charged in a criminal complaint for conspiracy, smuggling goods into the United States, false statements, and visa fraud. The FBI arrested the exchange visitor for allegedly smuggling a noxious fungus which is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year and causes health problems for both humans and livestock. The J-1 allegedly received Chinese government funding for her work on this pathogen and is a loyal member of the Chinese Communist Party.
Exchange visitor program categories include college and university students, which share similarities with the F-1 nonimmigrant classification. Students enrolled in such programs are pursuing post-secondary studies alongside F-1 nonimmigrants. J-1 college and university students in a degree program may be authorized to participate in the exchange visitor program so long as they meet the requirements for duration of participation, including pursuing a full course of study, echoing the full course of study requirements for F-1 nonimmigrants. Their programs may also be extended by the ROs, subject to regulation and/or approval by DOS, without an application to DHS. These similarities give rise to the same concerns related to F-1s about national security, as described above, and about fraud and abuse by J-1s and their ROs. By requiring the same fixed period of admission for F-1s and J-1s, J-1 college and university students in exchange visitor programs would be unable to circumvent the intent of this proposed rule,
Admitting most I nonimmigrants for D/S affords them different treatment from most other nonimmigrants, who are admitted for a specified period of time. The Department believes admitting aliens temporarily in the United States for a fixed period would strengthen vetting and information collection and help immigration officers ensure that the I nonimmigrants are, and will be, engaged in activities that are permissible under INA 101(a)(15)(I). In addition, this rulemaking proposes to require individuals who wish to remain in I nonimmigrant status beyond the end date for their authorized stay to apply for an EOS with USCIS, at which point immigration officers can review their activities in the United States. It also clarifies what DHS would require these individuals to present as evidence supporting their EOS request.
All persons arriving at a POE to the United States must be inspected by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer and must apply for admission into the United States with CBP.
However, certain nonimmigrant classifications, including F academic students, J exchange visitors, and I representatives of foreign information media, and their dependents, may be admitted into the United States for D/S instead of a period of time with a specific departure date. DHS is proposing changes to the admission provisions for these particular nonimmigrant classifications, including replacing admissions for “duration of status” with a fixed admission period. This would enable immigration officers to independently and directly verify the continued eligibility of foreign visitors in F, J, or I nonimmigrant status. It would also require aliens who fall under certain criteria to apply more frequently for additional admission periods.
A goal of this proposed rule is to institute policies that would encourage aliens to maintain lawful status and reduce instances in which F, J, and I nonimmigrants unlawfully remain in the United States after their program, practical training, or activities or assignments consistent with the I classification ends. Aliens who remain in the United States beyond a fixed time period generally would begin accruing unlawful presence. Unlawful presence in the United States may result in an alien becoming inadmissible upon departing the United States.
Under this proposal, aliens applying for admission in either F or J status who, under this proposal, would be eligible to be admitted for a maximum period of 4 years or the length of program as specified on Form I-20 or DS-2019, whichever is shorter, or the end date of the approved employment authorization for post-completion OPT and Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) OPT, as applicable, plus additional 30 day periods for arrival and a 30-day period to prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to obtain lawful authorization to remain in the United States.
In this proposal, DHS addresses the following circumstances that might apply when F and J nonimmigrants apply for admission at a POE:
• Aliens who departed the United States, including those seeking admission before their timely filed EOS application has been adjudicated, but after their previously authorized period of stay has expired, could be eligible to be admitted for the length of time required to reach the program end date noted in their most recent Form I-20 or DS-2019, not to exceed 4 years, plus a period of 30 days to prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to obtain lawful authorization to remain in the United States, similar to an initial period of admission.
• Aliens who departed the United States and are applying for admission before their timely filed EOS application has been adjudicated, but before their previously authorized period of stay has expired, could be eligible to be admitted either for:
○ The length of time as indicated by the program end date noted in their most recent Form I-20 or DS-2019, not to exceed 4 years, plus a period of 30 days to prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to obtain lawful authorization to remain in the United States, similar to an initial period of admission. If the alien is admitted for the program length (not to exceed 4 years, as applicable), USCIS would consider the alien's EOS application abandoned because the alien's new fixed date of admission based on the most recent I-20 or DS-2019 had already been determined by CBP upon the most recent admission to the United States, and thus the pending EOS application is extraneous; or
○ The period of time remaining on their previously authorized period of admission. CBP could admit the alien for a period of time not to exceed the unexpired period of stay that was authorized before the alien's departure, plus a period of 30 days to prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to obtain lawful authorization to remain in the United States. In this scenario, in accordance with proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(8), an alien's EOS application would not be considered abandoned and USCIS could grant a new period of stay upon subsequent adjudication of the EOS application.
DHS is providing additional clarification here in this preamble that in order to facilitate admission in this scenario, aliens should be prepared to provide evidence of a timely filed extension in the form of a receipt notice issued by DHS for either instance detailed above.
• Aliens who departed the United States after timely filing an EOS application and are reapplying for admission after their EOS application is granted. In such cases, CBP could admit them for a period of time not to exceed the time authorized by their approved EOS, plus a period of 30 days to prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to obtain lawful authorization to remain in the United States.
• Aliens who departed the United States without an approved EOS application and are applying for admission with a valid Form I-20 or Form DS-2019, or successor form, may be admitted for the length of time as indicated by the program end date noted in their Form I-20 or DS-2019, not to exceed 4 years, plus a period of 30 days to prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to obtain lawful authorization to remain in the United States.
• F nonimmigrants applying for admission to engage in post-completion OPT or STEM OPT may, generally, be admitted either up to the expiration date noted on their EAD or up to the DSO's recommended employment end date for post completion or STEM OPT specified on their Form I-20, whichever is later, plus a 30-day period to prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to obtain lawful authorization to remain in the United States.
This proposed rule would clarify how the periods of admission will be calculated for F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants. Specifically, DHS proposes adding wording to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i), (f)(7)(vi) and (j)(1)(iv)(C) clarifying that the 30-day period before the indicated report date or program start date and 30 additional days following the program end date or 4-year maximum period of admission do not count towards the maximum F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants are permitted.
Under this proposed rule, certain aliens applying for admission pursuant to the provisions relating to automatic extension of visa validity in the case of an absence not exceeding 30 days solely in contiguous territory or adjacent islands could be admitted up to the unexpired period of stay authorized prior to their departure and the visa is considered automatically extended to the date of application for readmission only.
All of these cases assume, consistent with this proposed rule, that the admission period of any F or J nonimmigrant previously admitted for D/S would be transitioned to a fixed date of admission. To provide adequate notice to aliens previously admitted for D/S regarding the date when their admission period ends pursuant to the proposed transition, DHS proposes that an alien's period of admission would expire on the program end date on the alien's Form I-20 or DS-2019 that is valid on the final rule's effective date, not to exceed a period of 4 years from the final rule's effective date, plus the currently permitted additional period of 60 days for F nonimmigrants and 30 days for J nonimmigrants to depart.
Although some F and J nonimmigrants may have program end dates longer than 4 years, DHS believes that using the program end date on the Form I-20 or DS-2019, up to a maximum 4-year period of admission, as the fixed date of admission is the best option because it aligns with the general structure of post-secondary education while still allowing for the government to have increased oversight of this population through the requirement that those nonimmigrants who wish to remain beyond their authorized period of admission either apply to extend their stay or depart the United States and seek readmission. According to the U.S. Department of Education (ED), students can normally earn a bachelor's degree in 4 years
Before arriving at the 4-year admission periods, DHS considered various options. DHS considered a standard 2-year admission for all F and J nonimmigrants. This option would give the Department more frequent direct check-in points with nonimmigrants than a 4-year maximum period of admission would. However, DHS was concerned it would unduly burden many F and J nonimmigrants. As discussed above, 4 years best accounts for the normal progress for most programs. With a 2-year admission period, students and exchange visitors participating in programs of greater duration would need to apply for additional time. Even considering those F or J nonimmigrants who are admitted
DHS proposes to change the admission language in the provision relating to extension of visa validity in limited situations from “shall” to “may” to clarify that CBP always maintains the discretion to determine whether an alien is admissible and the appropriate period of admission. This change removes any ambiguity about whether CBP has an absolute duty to admit an alien to clarify that CBP has the discretion to admit an alien for a certain period of time, consistent with statutory and regulatory authorities.
DHS proposes technical revisions to the visa revalidation provisions that allow certain F, J, and M nonimmigrants to apply for admission if eligible for admission as an F, J, or M nonimmigrant if they are applying for admission after an absence from the United States not exceeding 30 days spent solely in contiguous territory or adjacent islands.
DHS proposes minor technical updates to account for inaccurate or no longer applicable terms and cites: First, DHS proposes to strike the reference to INA 101(a)(15)(Q)(ii) and reserve it, as that program no longer exists and is no longer in the INA.
This proposed rule would not create a new form for an EOS application. However, in the future, some form names and numbers may change. While DHS plans to update existing forms allowing F, J, and I nonimmigrants to apply for an EOS with USCIS, DHS believes it would be more efficient to replace references to specific form names and numbers throughout the current proposed regulations with generally applicable language. Using general language in the regulatory text instead of referring to specific form names and numbers helps both the Department and stakeholders. It allows for technical changes without requiring an entirely new rulemaking to update form names. Stakeholders would receive notice and specific guidance on USCIS' website and in the appropriate form instructions, as they already do for various other benefits. Therefore, DHS proposes to use this language in 8 CFR 214.1(c)(2) and to strike the current phrase exempting F and J nonimmigrants from the requirement to file an EOS, as they would be required to file an EOS if they wish to remain in the United States beyond their specified date of admission.
Like the technical updates to strike the specific form name from 8 CFR 214.1(c)(2), DHS is proposing to strike the references to Forms “I-129” and “I-539” in 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5), replacing those specific form numbers with the aforementioned general language.
DHS proposes striking “other than as provided in 214.2(f)(7)” from 8 CFR 214.1(c)(3)(v) to make it clear that students must apply for an EOS. This requirement would not apply to other nonimmigrants admitted for D/S, such as A-1 or A-2 representatives of foreign governments and their immediate family members; they would remain ineligible to file an EOS.
As part of the EOS application, USCIS requires biometric collection and will require such collection from F, J, and I nonimmigrants under the proposed rule. USCIS has the general authority to require and collect biometrics from applicants, petitioners, sponsors, beneficiaries, or other individuals residing in the United States for any immigration and naturalization benefit.
Finally, DHS considered how to address the admission of F, J, and I nonimmigrants who timely filed an EOS and/or an application for employment authorization but left the United States before receiving a decision from USCIS. DHS anticipates this scenario would apply mostly to F-1 students applying for post-completion OPT and STEM OPT extensions.
While USCIS generally does not consider an application for EOS abandoned when the nonimmigrant leaves the United States,
Consistent with the general provision on admission in proposed 8 CFR 214.1(a)(4), where the alien leaves the United States and applies for admission while his or her EOS application is pending and is admitted based on a new
The Department considered a policy whereby an F, J, or I nonimmigrant would automatically abandon an EOS application upon departing the United States. However, the Department believes such a strict requirement would not be practical, because people cannot always predict when they will have to travel.
Regarding applications for employment authorization for F-1 and J-2 nonimmigrants, DHS notes that CBP does not adjudicate applications for employment authorization. Should an EOS application be deemed abandoned, USCIS would continue processing any applications for employment authorization, notwithstanding a departure, and, if the application is approved, USCIS would not issue an EAD with a validity date that exceeds the fixed date of admission provided to the alien at the POE. For example, an F-1 student wishing to engage in post-completion OPT or a STEM OPT extension would need to file both an EOS application and an application for employment authorization. Where the alien had departed the United States before his or her applications are adjudicated, USCIS would not consider the employment authorization application abandoned.
In all events, when an F-1 or a J-2 nonimmigrant travels while the employment authorization or EOS application is pending, he or she is still expected to respond to any Request for Evidence (RFE) and to timely submit the requested documents. Because an RFE may arrive after an alien departs, either electronically or at a U.S. address, aliens traveling outside the United States while applications are pending are advised to make necessary arrangements to determine whether they have received an RFE relating to their application and to timely respond to any RFE.
DHS proposes to generally allow all F and J nonimmigrants present in the United States on the final rule's effective date who are validly maintaining that status and who were admitted for D/S to remain in the United States in F or J status, without filing an EOS request, up to the program end date reflected on their Form I-20 or DS-2019 that is valid on the Final Rule's effective date, for a period not to exceed 4 years from the effective date of the Final Rule, plus an additional 60 days for these F nonimmigrants and 30 days for J nonimmigrants to depart the country.
F and J nonimmigrants who depart the United States after the rule's effective date and before the end date reflected on their Form I-20 or DS-2019 may be admitted with a new fixed admission period, like any other newly admitted F or J nonimmigrant, as provided for in proposed 8 CFR 214.1(a)(4) based on the date on their Form I-20 or DS-2019 and 30 days for departure.
For those aliens in F-1 status, admitted for D/S, present in the United States 60 days after the final rule publication who have timely filed on or before 6 months after the effective date of the final rule for an application for post-completion OPT or a STEM OPT extension, there would not be a requirement to file an EOS application, and, instead, they would be required to file the application for employment authorization for post-completion OPT or a STEM OPT extension.
Regarding pending applications for employment authorization during the transition period, aliens in F status who are subject to the transition and who are seeking post-completion OPT and STEM-OPT employment authorization would be authorized to lawfully remain in the United States while the application is pending with USCIS if: (1) they are in the United States on the effective date of the final rule with admission for D/S; (2) they properly filed an application for employment authorization; (3) their application is pending on the final rule's effective date; and (4) they are not otherwise removable under the INA. Unless otherwise advised by USCIS, they would not have to file for an EOS or re-file an application for employment authorization.
Aliens in F-1 status with pending employment authorization applications, other than post-completion OPT and STEM OPT, also would not need to file for an extension or refile an employment authorization application. As long as these F-1 nonimmigrants continue to pursue a full course of study and otherwise meet the requirements for F-1 status, they continue to be authorized to remain in the United States until the program end date listed on the Form I-20, plus 60 days, regardless of whether the employment authorization is approved or denied.
DHS believes that this transition proposal would not be unreasonably burdensome on F and J nonimmigrants, and it would enable DHS to transition F and J nonimmigrants without unduly burdening nonimmigrants, USCIS, or CBP. Many would be able to complete their programs per the terms of their initial admission (D/S) using the original program end date as an expiration of their authorized period of stay. DHS would grant such periods, which include an additional 60 days for F nonimmigrants and 30 days for J nonimmigrants as provided in their previous admission, automatically without an application or fee. With this option, DHS believes that the majority of F and J nonimmigrants will be shifted to a fixed period of admission of 4 years or less, except for some F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors. For example, J-1 research scholars and alien physicians who have program end dates for up to 5 or 7 years respectively, would need to apply for an EOS before the 4-year maximum period of stay expires,
Another benefit of this option is that it would enable DHS to transition F and J nonimmigrants to an admission for a fixed time period without unduly burdening them, USCIS, or CBP. This option would ensure that no F and J nonimmigrants remain in the United States indefinitely by requiring all F and J nonimmigrants admitted for D/S who wish to extend their stay beyond their program end date or the 4-year maximum, whichever is applicable, to either file an EOS request or depart the United States and apply for admission at a POE by their program end date or the 4-year maximum period of stay from the final rule's effective date, plus an additional 60 days for F nonimmigrants, and 30 days for J nonimmigrants.
In proposing these transition procedures, DHS took into consideration the effect of transitioning to a fixed period of admission will have on F and J nonimmigrants originally admitted for D/S who chose to temporarily come to the United States to pursue a program of study or an exchange visitor program. DHS believes the proposed changes would not significantly affect the interests of these nonimmigrants admitted in D/S. DHS is not proposing to change the fundamental requirements to qualify for these nonimmigrant statuses, rather it is only proposing to change the length of time that an individual may lawfully remain in the United States in F or J status without filing an EOS application. Admitting these classifications of nonimmigrants for a fixed period of admission simply confirms that the admission is temporary and clearly communicates when that temporary admission period ends. Further, as is the case for the fixed period of admission policy more generally, a fixed date of admission simply places these nonimmigrants in the same position as most other nonimmigrants who are temporarily in the United States. They would still be able to continue to pursue their full course of study or exchange visitor program; however, if they need additional time in F or J status, the burden would now be upon them to request authorization directly from DHS and establish eligibility to extend their period of stay in such status, whereas previously they obtained an extension of lawful status in conjunction with a program extension through a DSO or RO.
At the same time, this proposed process would provide immigration officials an opportunity to directly review and determine whether F and J nonimmigrants who wish to remain in the United States beyond their fixed period of admission are complying with U.S. immigration law and are indeed eligible to retain their nonimmigrant status. If there are F or J nonimmigrants relying on a D/S admission in an attempt to permanently remain in the United States, or otherwise circumvent their authorized status, this proposed process would allow DHS to detect and deny an EOS request or entry under a new period of admission.
DHS considered several alternatives before determining the above proposal was the best option. First, DHS considered whether to impose a consistent length for the fixed admission for all F and J nonimmigrants transitioning from a D/S admission, such as 1 or 3 years from the final rule's effective date. While this proposal would provide a standard end date, DHS was concerned about the expense and workload implications of this option on all stakeholders and DHS. As noted, DHS expects most F and J nonimmigrants to complete their program of study or exchange visitor program within a 4-year period. A date that does not align with this expectation could place an unnecessary burden on the affected F and J nonimmigrants and on their academic institutions or exchange visitor programs' sponsors and employers, as applicable. USCIS would be especially affected if a significant percentage of these nonimmigrants chose to remain in the United States and file for an EOS in order to complete the balance of their program, study, or work activity. While USCIS could try to anticipate the volume, the sheer number of simultaneous nonimmigrants filing for EOS could significantly lengthen processing times. Because the proposed option is less burdensome on F and J nonimmigrants and on DHS, DHS does not believe that ending D/S for all F and J nonimmigrants at timeframes that do not align with the expected length of stay presents the best way to transition from D/S to admission for a fixed time period. The proposed transition period is consistent with the generally applicable policy and allows for the normal progress for most programs that nonimmigrants should be making. Further, it ensures that these nonimmigrants are complying with the terms and conditions of their status by requiring them to apply to extend their status by the end date on the I-20 or DS-2019, not to exceed 4 years.
A second option that DHS considered was to allow F and J nonimmigrants to keep their D/S period of admission until they depart the United States. The Department rejected this alternative, however, because one of the main reasons for proposing this rule is to address current abuse tied to the D/S period of authorized admission. Adopting this alternative would allow aliens currently violating their nonimmigrant status to largely avoid the consequences of non-compliance with U.S. immigration laws by simply remaining in the United States, as otherwise described in this rule.
Third, DHS evaluated an option to allow F and J nonimmigrants to retain their D/S admission up to their program end date, with the transfer to a fixed admission date implemented through any of the following actions of the nonimmigrant: (i) departure from the United States; (ii) transfer to a different institution or sponsor; (iii) failure to maintain a full course of study; (iv) approval for reinstatement;
In sum, DHS's proposal is to transition all F and J nonimmigrants to a fixed admission date by using the program end date noted on their Form I-20 or DS-2019 (with the exception of F students engaging in post-completion or a STEM OPT extension who would use their EAD's expiration date), not to exceed 4 years, plus an additional 60 days for F nonimmigrants and 30 days for J nonimmigrants as provided in their previous admission. DHS believes this is a natural way to transition the majority of these nonimmigrants to a fixed admission date without creating any loopholes, such as those that could be created by allowing F and J nonimmigrants to retain their duration of status, potentially permitting those who are abusing their status to continue to do so without the oversight and vetting conducted through EOS. It would also provide all affected nonimmigrants with adequate notice of the events that would trigger the transition to a fixed admission date and their responsibilities resulting from such change.
Turning to I nonimmigrants who are in the United States on the effective date of the final rule from their existing D/S admission to a fixed date of admission, DHS proposes an automatic extension of the length of time it takes the alien to complete his or her activity, for a period of up to 240 days.
I nonimmigrants who seek to remain in the United States longer than the automatic extension period provided would be required to file an extension of stay request with USCIS.
Under this proposal, if the EOS request is denied, the alien must cease working and depart the United States immediately. As with most other nonimmigrant classifications, they would not be given any period of time to prepare for departure from the United States after the denial, and there may be significant immigration consequences for failing to depart the country immediately. For example, such aliens generally would begin to accrue unlawful presence the day after the issuance of the denial. DHS believes this proposed standard provides parity across nonimmigrant classifications.
Finally, DHS proposes the transition procedures would not apply to F, J, or I aliens who are outside the United States when the final rule takes effect, or to any aliens present in the United States in violation of their status.
DHS is proposing various changes under the regulations that provide the framework for admission, extension, and maintenance of status for F nonimmigrants. These changes would eliminate D/S, require students to file an EOS if requesting to remain in the United States beyond the period of their admission, and clarify terms to ensure that the activities an F nonimmigrant has engaged in are consistent with those of a bona fide student.
As a preliminary matter, DHS is proposing to strike the existing regulation that allows F nonimmigrants to be admitted for D/S. DHS would replace it with a provision allowing F nonimmigrants to be granted status for the length of their program, not to exceed 4 years.
Second, DHS proposes to retain in the regulations the statutory limitation that restricts public high school students to an aggregate of 12 months of study at any public high school(s).
Third, F-1 students who are applying to attend an approved private elementary or middle school or private academic high school would continue to be covered by the provisions of 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(i)(E). These provisions require the DSO to certify a minimum number of class hours per week prescribed by the school for normal progress toward graduation.
Fourth, DHS is proposing to exempt part-time border commuter students from the general length of admission provisions.
Fifth, F-1 students in a language training program would be restricted to an aggregate of 24 months of language study, which would include breaks and an annual vacation.
Sixth, DHS proposes students with pending employment authorization applications who are admitted based on the DSO's recommended employment end date for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT specified on their Form I-20, with a notice issued by USCIS indicating receipt of the Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765 or successor form for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT, and who cease employment authorized pursuant to a post-completion OPT- or STEM OPT-based EAD that expires before the alien's fixed date of admission as noted on their Arrival-Departure Record (Form I-94 or successor form), be considered to be in the United States in a period of authorized stay from the date of the expiration noted on their EAD until the fixed date of admission as noted on their I-94 (unless the student violates the terms of the authorized stay).
Seventh, the authorized period of stay for F-2 dependents will continue to not be able to exceed the authorized period of stay of the principal F-1 alien. DHS proposes adding this requirement to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i)(E).
Under existing regulations, all F-1 students who change from one educational level to another or pursue multiple degrees in the same educational level are considered to be maintaining status.
DHS has also observed a pattern of students immediately transferring schools or changing educational levels or programs of study upon their arrival in the United States. These students often use an admission letter and Form I-20 from a well-known school to increase their odds of obtaining a student visa and then immediately request a transfer to their intended school or program of study once they have gained admission to the United States. Some of the most egregious examples are those who apply to a 4-year university, which requires demonstration of sufficient English level skills for enrollment in classes through the passage of the Test of English as a Foreign Language test (commonly known as TOEFL), receive their visa based on their declared intention of attending a 4-year university, and then transfer to English language programs upon arrival. Other, more dangerous examples, include those foreign students who receive a visa based on their declared intention to study the humanities, but then transfer into sensitive programs such as nuclear science. A handful of those have been
While there may be legitimate cases of students who wish to change their educational objective to gain knowledge at a lower or at the same educational level, the traditional path of study typically progresses from a lower educational program to a higher one. The existing regulations present a model consistent with the majority of bona fide students who follow this traditional trajectory. The term “full course of study” as defined in the existing regulations requires that the program “lead to the attainment of a specific educational or professional objective.”
DHS proposes to restrict school transfers and changes of educational objectives within a student's first academic year of a program of study, unless an exception is authorized by SEVP, and to prohibit F-1 students in a graduate level program of study from changing educational objectives or transferring from within the United States. “Educational objectives” refers to an F-1 student's educational level or major.
In addition, an alien who has completed a program as an F-1 nonimmigrant at one educational level would be unable to maintain F-1 status, depart and be admitted in F-1 status, or otherwise obtain F-1 status (
DHS believes that it is reasonable for a student to progress to a higher educational level as that is the traditional trajectory in the pursuit of higher education. Movement within the same level after completion of a program or to a lower educational level raises concerns regarding whether the F-1 alien is a bona fide student who intends to temporarily and solely pursue a full course of study rather than pursuing different degrees as a de facto way to prolong their stay in the United States.
If an F-1 student who has completed their first academic year of a program of study seeks to change educational objectives and this change would require an EOS, the alien would then apply for EOS using the form designated by USCIS, paying the required fee and following all form instructions, including submitting any biometrics required by 8 CFR 103.16.
DHS recognizes that this proposal may require updates to SEVIS and other systems. Because the timeframe for those updates is not fixed and there could be technical issues regarding implementation, DHS is proposing to include a provision whereby the Department may delay or suspend implementation, at its discretion, if it determines that the change in educational level limitation is inoperable for any reason.
Additionally, DHS proposes to retain the term “educational” with respect to a change in level as the Department
Specifically, “educational” captures programs for non-degree students, whereas using a term such as “degree” may not. For example, an F-1 student currently would not qualify for additional post-completion OPT if he or she changes to a non-degree certificate program, given that the certificate program is not a “higher educational level.” Similarly, certificate programs for professional advancement are typically not considered to be a “higher educational level” that would allow F-1 students to qualify for additional post-completion OPT.
DHS believes these proposals would encourage F-1 students to complete the programs of study for which they were admitted to the United States and to only pursue additional programs of study that demonstrate an upward progression in degree levels, which is expected from a qualified bona fide student who is coming to the United States temporarily and solely to pursue a course of study. The Department believes that these new restrictions would not significantly impact the choice of bona fide students who come to the United States temporarily to complete a full course of study. The F-1 program, with its statutory requirement that an alien be a bona fide student who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing a full course of study at the school listed on his or her Form I-20 or successor form, should not be used by aliens wishing to remain in the United States indefinitely. These proposals will better ensure that this statutory intent is fulfilled without hindering the options presented to bona fide students seeking study at higher educational levels and thus would create a balanced solution to this issue.
DHS believes that the time allotted for F students to prepare for departure should be revised from 60 to 30 days.
DHS believes that 30 days for the F nonimmigrant population is the appropriate balance between a 60-day and a 10-day period of departure. DHS believes that the F classification, albeit distinct from M or J, shares a core similarity in that many aliens in these classifications are seeking admission to the United States to study at United States educational institutions. Thus, DHS thinks that these classifications should have a standard period of time to prepare for departure, or take other action to extend, change, or otherwise maintain lawful status. DHS thinks that 30 days is an adequate period for F-1 students to prepare for departure and is in line with similar classifications (the M and J departure periods).
Additionally, in the 2016 rulemaking establishing a 10-day grace period for certain nonimmigrant classifications, DHS chose to remove the phrase “to prepare for departure from the United States or to seek an extension or change of status based on a subsequent offer of employment” from the proposed regulatory text relating to the purpose of the grace period, with the justification that it was unnecessarily limiting and did not fully comport with how the existing 10-day grace period may be used by individuals in the H, O, and P nonimmigrant [visa] classifications.
DHS also proposes to clarify that the proposed period is 30 days from the Form I-94 (or successor form) end date or the expiration date noted on the EAD (Form I-766 or successor form), as applicable, to prepare for departure from the United States, or to otherwise maintain status, including timely filing an extension of stay application in accordance with paragraph (f)(7) of this section and 8 CFR 214.1 or timely filing a change of status application in accordance with 8 CFR 248.1(a). DHS proposes removing the reference to completing a course of study or a program in order to provide consistency in the admission of all F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants and to allow the departure period to be reflected on the I-94 at admission, so that the F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants would have an unambiguous end date of their period of authorized admission, easily referenced on the I-94. USCIS, when adjudicating applications for a change of status to F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrant status and EOS applications of F-1 and J-1 status would similarly provide I-797 approval notices reflecting the 30-day departure period following the program end date or the 4-year maximum period of admission, or period of OPT or STEM OPT, as applicable. DHS proposes making corresponding changes in the regulatory text at 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v) where the departure period and I-94 (or successor form) are discussed.
Finally, DHS proposes to retain the current regulatory language that allows a 15-day period for departure from the United States if an alien is authorized by the DSO to withdraw from classes, but no additional time for departure if the alien fails to maintain a full course of study without the approval of the DSO or otherwise fails to maintain
Each year, a number of U.S. employers seek to employ F-1 students and file a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, with USCIS, along with a change of status request, to obtain classification of the F-1 student as an H-1B nonimmigrant worker. The H-1B nonimmigrant visa program allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations, defined by statute as occupations that require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent.
DHS proposes to strike “duration of status” from redesignated 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vii) and clarify that an alien with F-1 status whose admission period as indicated on his or her I-94 has expired, but who has timely filed an EOS application, would be authorized to continue pursuing a full course of study after the end date of his or her admission until USCIS adjudicates the EOS application.
The shift to a fixed date of admission has implications for various types of employment authorization. Currently, DSOs may authorize certain types of employment authorization, including on campus employment and CPT,
For on-campus employment where no EAD is needed, DHS proposes to allow aliens in F-1 status to continue to be authorized for on-campus employment while their EOS applications with USCIS are pending, not to exceed a period of 240 days.
Likewise, DHS is proposing an automatic extension of off-campus employment authorization for up to 240-days during the pendency of the EOS application, for F-1 aliens who had previously demonstrated severe economic hardship pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(C) and had previously received an EAD from USCIS that expired at the program end date that is now being extended with the EOS application.
For F-1 aliens granted off-campus employment authorization on the basis of severe economic hardship resulting from emergent circumstances pursuant to existing 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v), DHS is proposing an automatic extension of such employment authorization with a different validity period than the general 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(C) severe economic hardship employment authorization extension described above while their EOS applications are pending. This will codify USCIS's current policy, which states USCIS may grant Special Student Relief (SSR) employment authorization for the duration of the
As first promulgated in 1998, the SSR regulations provide necessary flexibility to address unforeseeable emergencies by allowing DHS, by notice in the
Due to the shift to a fixed admission period, DHS proposes to provide an automatic extension of SSR-based employment so aliens' ability to benefit from this long-standing regulatory relief is not interrupted by USCIS processing times. This change is consistent with current USCIS policy, which allows for SSR employment authorization to be granted for the duration of the
As evidence of these automatic extensions of employment authorization, DHS is proposing that the F-1 alien's I-94 (or successor form) or EAD (Form I-766, or successor form), for F-1 nonimmigrants requiring an EAD, when combined with a notice issued by USCIS indicating receipt of a timely filed EOS application (such as the Form I-797), would be considered unexpired until USCIS issues a decision on the EOS application, not to exceed 240 days.
Under existing regulations, F-1 students may obtain a program extension from a DSO as long as they are maintaining status and making normal progress toward the completion of their educational objectives.
Therefore, DHS proposes not to use a “normal progress” standard with respect to seeking a program extension of an authorized period of stay. In addition to the requirement that the applicant obtain a Form I-20 from the DSO recommending extension of the program, the applicant would be required to file an EOS application to request additional time to complete their current course of study beyond their authorized period of admission.
Apart from pursuing a new course of study, DHS appreciates that the time for study can legitimately fluctuate given the changing goals and actions of the student. For example, a student may experience compelling academic or medical reasons or circumstances beyond their control that cause them to need additional time in the United States beyond the predetermined end date of the program in which they were initially enrolled. DHS understands these circumstances arise and believes these scenarios present an appropriate situation for the Department to directly evaluate the nonimmigrant's eligibility for additional time in the United States. However, instead of effectively extending their stay through a DSO's program extension recommendation in SEVIS, students would have to obtain a Form I-20 from the DSO recommending a program extension and apply to USCIS for an EOS under the proposed regulations. Immigration officers thereby would be able to conduct appropriate background and security checks on the applicant at the time of the EOS application and directly review the proffered evidence to ensure that the alien is eligible for the requested EOS, including through assessing whether the alien remains admissible.
In these circumstances, the Department would only extend the stay beyond the prior admission date (typically the program end date for which the student was admitted to the United States as a F-1 nonimmigrant or was granted based on a change of status or EOS) of an otherwise eligible F-1 student requesting additional time to complete their program if the additional time needed is due to a compelling academic reason, documented medical illness or medical condition, or circumstance that was beyond the student's control. As with all nonimmigrant EOS, an alien seeking an EOS generally must have continually maintained status.
By way of illustration, a student with a fixed date of admission may request an additional 4 months to complete his or her program because the student was authorized to drop below a full course of study for one semester due to illness. Under the existing regulation, the student would need to request an updated Form I-20 from the DSO recommending a program extension. Under the proposed regulation, an immigration officer could review the proffered evidence and ensure that the claim is supported by documentation from a medical doctor. Conversely, a student may request an EOS for additional time to complete an associate program but fail to submit evidence they were properly authorized to drop below a full course of study. Under the proposed regulation, the immigration officer would have discretion to request transcripts from the student. If a student's transcripts reflect that the student failed multiple classes one semester, an immigration officer could determine the student has failed to maintain status due to a failure to carry a full course of study as required. In another example, a student could submit an EOS request to continue in the same program because he or she was unable to take all the required classes for his or her major due to over-enrollment at the school. Again, an officer could request additional information, if needed, to determine that the student was maintaining a full course of study (or, if not, was properly authorized to reduce his or her course load), but due to the school's high enrollment, the student may validly require an additional semester to complete the degree requirements in order to graduate.
Therefore, DHS is proposing to eliminate a reference to “normal progress” with respect to seeking a program extension and incorporate a new standard clarifying that acceptable reasons for requesting an extension of a stay for additional time to complete a program are: (1) compelling academic reasons; (2) a documented illness or medical condition; or (3) exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the alien.
Next, DHS is proposing to clarify that a student can qualify for a program extension and corresponding EOS based on a documented illness or medical
DHS is also proposing a new factor in the EOS provisions—circumstances beyond the student's control, including a natural disaster, a national health crisis, or the closure of an institution.
Therefore, DHS is proposing a third prong that would encompass scenarios that are not envisioned in the current provisions governing the extension of a program end date, such as those noted above. Some scenarios are currently in the reinstatement provisions, 8 CFR 214.2(f)(16)(i)(F), such as natural disasters, pandemics, and the negligence of a DSO, and DHS believes that they merit favorable consideration in extension requests moving forward. Other scenarios may present circumstances that require a more intensive, fact-specific analysis and may fall into this proposed third prong. For example, the circumstances surrounding the closure of a school may be considered in determining whether the student qualifies for an EOS. By way of illustration, if a school closes as a result of a criminal conviction of its owners for engaging in student visa fraud by not requiring students to attend, but the student is unable to demonstrate that he or she was attending classes prior to closure as required to fulfill a full course of study, the closure of the institution might not qualify the student for a program extension. In contrast, if a school closes but a student is able to demonstrate that he or she was attending classes and was fulfilling all requirements to otherwise remain in status, the closure of the institute may qualify the student for a program extension.
The requirements to timely request an extension of the program end date would remain largely unchanged; however, DHS proposes a technical change to replace all references to the DSO “granting” an extension of the program with the term “recommend” an extension of the program in order for the student to file for EOS because USCIS, not the DSO, would “grant” the EOS.
If seeking an EOS to engage in any type of practical training, the alien in F-1 status would also need to have a valid Form I-20, properly endorsed for practical training, and be eligible to receive the specific type of practical training requested.
Finally, a student's failure to timely request, from the DSO, a recommendation for extension of the program end date prior to expiration of the student's authorized stay, which would result in the DSO recommending an extension of the program end date in SEVIS after the end date noted on the most recent Form I-20 or successor form, would require the alien to file for a reinstatement of F-1 status, because the alien would have failed to maintain status and would be ineligible for an EOS.
With the transition from D/S to admission for a fixed time period, F-1 students would need to apply for an EOS directly with USCIS, by submitting the appropriate form and following the requirements outlined in the form instructions. USCIS anticipates accepting the Form I-539, Application to Change/Extend Nonimmigrant Status, for this population but would like the flexibility to use a new form if more efficient or responsive to workload needs. Thus, DHS is proposing to use general language to account for a possible change in form in the future.
Like all other aliens who file a Form I-539, F-1 applicants might be required to submit biometrics and may be required to appear for an interview pursuant to 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9).
In addition, applicants would need to demonstrate that they are eligible for the nonimmigrant classification sought. Accordingly, applicants must submit evidence of sufficient funds to cover expenses. A failure to provide such evidence would render the applicant ineligible for the EOS.
While the sponsoring school is required to verify the availability of financial support before issuing the Form I-20, they may not be well-versed in foreign documentation submitted by applicants and circumstances may change between the issuance of a Form I-20 and a request for an EOS. Further, it is incumbent upon DHS to determine the veracity of the evidence submitted, and officers must ensure that the student has sufficient funds to study in the United States without resorting to unauthorized employment. The phrase “sufficient funds to cover expenses” is referred to in existing DOS regulations concerning issuance of F and M nonimmigrant student visas, 22 CFR
F-1 applicants generally would need to timely file their EOS application—meaning that USCIS would need to receive the application on or before the date the authorized admission period expires.
The length of the extension granted could be up to the period of time needed to complete the program or requested practical training, not to exceed 4 years, unless the alien is a border commuter, enrolled in language training, or attending a public high school, in which case further restrictions apply, as described above. By permitting admission only “up to” the prescribed period, USCIS and CBP are afforded discretion as to the ultimate length of time to grant the applicant and consider factors such as program length.
F-2 dependents seeking to accompany the F-1 principal student would need to file applications for an EOS or reinstatement, as applicable.
USCIS generally would need to receive the extension applications on or before the expiration of the previously authorized period of admission, including the 30-day period following the completion of the course of study, as indicated on the F-2 dependent's I-94. To qualify for an EOS, the F-2 dependent would need to demonstrate the qualifying relationship with the principal F-1 student who is maintaining status, also be maintaining his or her own status, and not have engaged in any unauthorized employment.
Under proposed 8 CFR 214.2(f)(7)(vii), if USCIS denies the request for an extension, and the period of admission for the student and his or her dependents has expired, then the student and his or her dependents would need to immediately depart the United States. As with other nonimmigrant classifications, they would not be given any period of time to prepare for departure from the United States after the denial, and there may be significant immigration consequences for failing to depart the country immediately. For example, such aliens generally would begin to accrue unlawful presence the day after the issuance of the denial. DHS believes this standard provides parity across nonimmigrant classifications and invites the public to submit comments on this issue as well as the proposed EOS application process.
As discussed above, a significant concern with the current D/S framework is that it has enabled fraudulent “pay-to-stay” schemes in which students were falsely reported as maintaining status in return for cash payments to DSOs. In some cases, school owners have operated multiple schools and transferred students between these schools to conceal this fraud. For example, in 2018, a defendant was sentenced by a federal judge in the Central District of California to 15 months in prison and ordered to forfeit more than $450,000 for running such a scheme involving three schools that he owned.
DHS proposes to retain some of the current school transfer and change of educational level conditions. First, as is the case currently, aliens would need to begin classes at the transfer school or program within 5 months of transferring out of the current school or within 5 months of the program completion date on his or her current Form I-20; and second, if the alien is authorized to engage in post-completion OPT, he or she must be able to resume classes within 5 months of changing programs or transferring out of the school that recommended OPT or the date the OPT authorization ends, whichever is earlier.
Another indication of a violation of F-1 status is failing to pursue a full course of study at the school that the alien is authorized to attend.
DHS also proposes clarifying that a change to a higher education level can be accomplished in accordance with the transfer procedures outlined in paragraph (f)(8)(ii) of 8 CFR 214.2
Next, if the new program to which the student changes or transfers will not be completed within the authorized admission period established in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) of 8 CFR 214.2, then, consistent with the other provisions throughout this proposed rule, the F-1 student would need to apply for EOS in the manner and on the form designated by USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance with form instructions, together with a valid, properly endorsed Form I-20 indicating the new program end date, and would need to provide biometrics as authorized by 8 CFR 103.16, if required.
DHS proposes to strike the sentence referencing how “duration of status” is inapplicable to border commuter students because DHS is proposing to eliminate D/S for all F nonimmigrants.
In the event a provision in the section was not implemented, DHS proposes that the remaining provisions be implemented as an independent rule in a severability clause.
The proposed revisions to the J regulations at 8 CFR closely align with the proposed changes for F nonimmigrants. Under proposed 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1), J exchange visitors would be able to receive an initial period of admission not to exceed the program end date as stated on the Form DS-2019, up to a period of 4 years. Currently, the permissible initial time periods for J program categories (as opposed to the periods of admission) are as follows, though further extensions are possible with DOS approval for all categories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As with the F classification, many J exchange visitors are admitted to participate in programs shorter than 4 years. Some J exchange visitors, like most F nonimmigrants, enter as post-secondary students. Similar to the F-1 Ph.D. student, some J nonimmigrants, like physicians, may need to stay longer than a 4-year period to complete their J program. However, all categories of J nonimmigrants would be covered by the same 4-year period proposed for F nonimmigrants. As such, DHS strives to treat these similarly situated nonimmigrants in a consistent manner by providing them with the same proposed maximum admission period.
DHS proposes to retain the 30-day period that J nonimmigrants are provided before the report date or start of the approved program listed on the DS-2019 and the 30-day period for preparation for departure. As DHS expects these nonimmigrants to use the 30-day period of time after the program ends to prepare for departure, the Department proposes to revise the language currently in 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii) that reads, “period of 30 days for the purposes of travel or for the period designated by the Commissioner . . .,” to instead read “a period of 30 days from the program end date or the 4-year maximum period of admission, whichever is earlier, for the purposes of departure or to otherwise seek to maintain lawful status.”
Consistent with the EOS eligibility requirements for J-1 nonimmigrants found at 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4), DHS proposes to codify the policy that extensions for spouses or children who are granted J-2 status based on their derivative relationship as a spouse or child of the principal J-1 nonimmigrant may not exceed the period of authorized admission of the principal J-1. The existing regulations state that the initial admission of a spouse or children may not be for longer than the principal exchange visitor.
The shift from D/S to admission for a fixed time period would mean that J nonimmigrants wishing to remain in the United States beyond their authorized period of stay would need to file for an EOS with USCIS. Like other nonimmigrants applying for EOS, they would need to file an EOS application on the form and in the manner designated by USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance with filing instructions, including any biometrics required by 8 CFR 103.16.
There are times when an exchange visitor's program status becomes inactive prior to program completion, which would result in the RO recommending a reinstatement of J-1 status to include an extension of the program beyond the end date noted on the most recent Form DS-2019 or successor form.
A dependent J-2 spouse and children seeking to accompany the J-1 exchange visitor in eligible J-1 categories during the additional period of admission would either need to be included on the primary applicant's request for extension or file their own EOS applications on the form designated by USCIS and may be required to provide biometrics consistent with 8 CFR 103.16.
As with other nonimmigrant classifications, the period of stay for J-2 dependents cannot exceed the period of stay authorized for the principal J-1 exchange visitor, including any EOS granted. And, as with other nonimmigrant classifications, if an EOS request is denied, the aliens would need to immediately depart the United States once their authorized period of stay expires.
Like I nonimmigrants, J-1 exchange visitors in some categories are authorized to engage in employment incident to status.
If the alien's initial date of admission passes, DHS proposes to consider the alien's I-94 unexpired when combined with a USCIS receipt notice indicating receipt of a timely filed EOS application and a valid, properly endorsed Form DS-2019 indicating his or her program's end date. An EOS application would be considered timely filed if the date on the receipt notice for the application of EOS is on or before the date the authorized stay expires. The extension of an alien's employment authorization would terminate on the date of denial of an individual's application for an EOS.
Unlike J-1 exchange visitors, J-2 spouses and eligible children may only engage in employment with authorization by USCIS.
Consistent with current regulatory requirements, if a J-2 dependent wants to engage in employment, he or she will need to file an application for employment authorization, in the manner designated by USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance with form instructions. If a J-2 dependent nonimmigrant's requested period of employment authorization exceeds his or her current admission period, the J-2 dependent would need to file an EOS application or be included as part of the J-1 principal's EOS application in the manner designated by USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance with form instructions. The validity of the J-2 dependent's employment authorization may not exceed the authorized admission period granted to the J-2 dependent pursuant to the EOS application.
As noted above in the discussion concerning EOS applications for F nonimmigrants, DHS considered but declined to adopt a policy that will result in abandonment of the EOS application upon traveling outside the United States while the EOS is pending. A J-1 or J-2 alien who travels during the time the EOS is pending may not be considered to have abandoned the EOS application.
DHS proposes to allow J-1 nonimmigrants to continue employment or authorized training while an EOS application is pending with USCIS. Specifically, DHS proposes to allow J-1s who have properly filed an EOS on or before 6 months after the effective date of the final rule, to engage in the activities consistent with pursuing the terms and conditions of the exchange program objectives, including authorized training, while the EOS is pending, up to the DS-2019 end date filed with the EOS application. If a J-1 nonimmigrant's EOS is still pending upon the end date of the DS-2019 filed with the EOS application, and the J-1 obtains a program extension from the sponsor and/or DOS, as applicable, DHS proposes to allow the alien to continue engaging in activities consistent with the exchange program objectives, including authorized training, so long as the EOS application is pending, and he or she has filed a subsequent EOS request with an end date beyond the DS-2019 end date requested in the preceding EOS request. In the future, the date which is initially 6 months after the effective date of the final rule may be extended, if DHS determines such an extension is necessary.
Finally, DHS proposes minor technical updates. First, in 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(vi) DHS proposes to strike the reference to duration of status, to update references to the “Commissioner” to refer to USCIS, and to replace the title with `
Changes in technology and in the way that the public consumes media information have raised novel questions as to whether certain individuals fit within the statutory and regulatory provisions that are applicable to representatives of foreign information media. To address these questions, DHS proposes to define a foreign media organization as “an organization engaged in the regular gathering, production or dissemination via print, radio, television, internet distribution, or other media, of journalistic information and has a home office in a foreign country.”
This proposal clarifies long-standing practice that the alien be a representative of a media organization with a home office in a foreign country by codifying what is considered a foreign media organization when seeking qualification as an I nonimmigrant.
DOS is the entity that determines whether an alien qualifies for an I visa, while USCIS is the entity that determines whether an alien who is in the United States in another nonimmigrant status can change to I status or whether an I alien who is already in the United States and seeks to change his or her employer or information medium continues to qualify for an I status. USCIS and DOS guidance discuss the distinction between journalistic content and content that is primarily for entertainment. DOS considers journalistic information as content that is primarily informational in nature, such as the reporting on recent or important events, investigative reporting, or producing educational materials, such as documentaries. It does not include content that is primarily designed to provide entertainment rather than information, including scripted or contrived situations, such as most “reality television” shows. It also does not include most personal content, such as discussions of personal experiences in the United States or materials aimed at fan engagement or works produced for promotional or marketing purposes.
Consistent with DOS guidance and current USCIS practice, whether content is journalistic information would depend on the nature of the content featured on the new media outlet. For example, a political blogger traveling to the United States to cover an election could qualify for I status, as election coverage would generally be considered journalistic information. In this example, the applicant would still need to demonstrate that he or she satisfies the other qualifications of an information media representative, including that he or she represents an organization involved in the regular gathering, production, or dissemination of journalistic information that has a home office in another country.
Similarly, a professional travel blogger traveling to the United States to obtain and produce materials on national parks in the United States could also qualify for I classification if all aspects of the definition of an information media representative are established, including the requirement that the media content generated will be journalistic information and that he or she represents an organization having an office in a foreign country and that is involved in the regular gathering, production, or dissemination of journalistic information. However, a blogger traveling to the United States to report on his or her own activities at a national park may not qualify for I status if the applicant does not represent an organization involved in the regular gathering, production, or dissemination of journalistic information and the media content is not primarily journalistic information. Individuals who are not professional bloggers, but maintain a personal blog and will produce content on their blog based on their personal experiences in the United States, such as providing information and reviews of their personal vacation, generally would not qualify for I classification, but may qualify for a B classification, depending on the circumstances.
These standards facilitate the travel of representatives of foreign information media. These proposed standards codify and clarify existing U.S. government practice and thus would not significantly alter the current guidance used by DHS officers adjudicating these cases or by DOS when determining whether an I visa should be issued. Rather, codifying these standards in the regulation would clarify how representatives of foreign press, radio, film or other journalistic information media qualify for the I classification. DHS does not anticipate that the changes proposed in this rule would represent a significant departure from current processing.
In order to be granted I classification, an alien would need to meet his or her burden of proof to establish eligibility for admission in that nonimmigrant classification. DHS believes that evidence presented by such individuals to establish employment as a bona fide representative of foreign press, radio, film or other journalistic information media should be provided in a letter from the employing foreign media organization verifying the employment, the work to be performed, and the remuneration involved.
Where an alien is self-employed or freelancing, the alien must provide an attestation that verifies the employment, establishes that he or she is a representative of a qualifying foreign media organization that meets the foreign home office requirement, and describes the remuneration and work to be performed. In order to maintain the home office in another country, a self-employed applicant would need to demonstrate that he or she intends to depart the United States within a reasonable time frame consistent with the intended purpose of travel. Like the letter from the employing foreign media organization, the attestation from the alien would help to ensure that the individual is engaging in qualifying activities, not activities primarily intended for personal fan engagement, or promotional or marketing purposes, which are unrelated to the regular gathering, production, or dissemination of journalistic information.
DHS is proposing that aliens in I nonimmigrant classification have admission periods not to exceed 240 days or the period of time necessary to complete their activities, whichever is shorter, while also allowing such alien to apply for an “extension of stay” of up to 240 days.
As I nonimmigrants who file a Form I-539 request with USCIS to request a change in information medium are currently allowed an automatic extension of employment authorization with the same employer while a Form I-539 application is pending for a period not to exceed 240 days, CFR 274a.12(b)(20), DHS believes that it is appropriate to extend such period of time to most other I nonimmigrant contexts. As stated above and in 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5), DHS proposes allowing an I nonimmigrant to continue activities consistent with the I classification while the timely application for EOS is pending, as provided for in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), for a period not to exceed 240 days or the actual additional time requested on the EOS application, whichever is shorter (with the exception of an I nonimmigrant submitting a passport from the PRC, except Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR, who can request extensions of up to 90 days), and beginning on the date of the expiration of the authorized period of stay.
In the event that the EOS application remains pending at the end of this period (the 240 day auto-extension or 90 days for certain aliens from PRC), DHS proposes the I nonimmigrant, whose status has expired, may remain in the United States so long as the EOS application is pending, and he or she has filed a subsequent EOS request to remain beyond the period requested in the preceding EOS request. But DHS proposes that the alien cease working until his or her initial/preceding EOS application is approved, and USCIS may deny an EOS application if it finds that the alien did not cease working.
DHS proposes each extension request for an I nonimmigrant conform to the current requirements outlined in 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4) that the request be timely filed, and that an alien file his or her EOS while the alien maintains his or her previously accorded lawful status or prior to the expiration of his or her status.
DHS proposes amendments at 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5)(ii) to clarify that the dependents of an I nonimmigrant may be eligible for an EOS, under the same conditions and subject to the same restrictions as the principal I nonimmigrant. DHS also proposes regulatory text at 8 CFR 214.2(i)(5)(iv), clarifying the meaning of “timely filing” in the context of these I EOS applications.
Aliens applying for an EOS currently file a Form I-539 with USCIS, with required fee and in accordance with form instructions, but DHS is using general terms in the proposed regulatory text when referencing the EOS application. DHS is using general terms, rather than referencing form names and
DHS proposes to apply the same fixed period of admission applicable to aliens seeking to change from a different nonimmigrant status to, if eligible, I status.
In the event a provision in the paragraph was not implemented, DHS proposes that the remaining provisions be implemented as an independent rule in a severability clause.
DHS is proposing to add two provisions to 8 CFR part 248, which governs changes of status. First, DHS is proposing to clarify that aliens who were granted a change to F or J status before the effective date of the final rule, and are applying for admission as an F or J after the final rule's effective date may be admitted up to the program end date as noted on the Form I-20 or DS-2019 that accompanied the change of status application that was approved prior to the alien's departure, not to exceed 4 years, plus a period of 30 days following their program end date, to prepare for departure or to otherwise seek to obtain lawful authorization to remain in the United States.
Second, DHS is proposing to codify the long-standing policy that, when an alien timely files an application to change to another nonimmigrant status, including F or J status, but departs the United States while the application is pending, USCIS will consider the application abandoned. Under section 248 of the INA, DHS may authorize a change of status to a nonimmigrant who, among other things, continues to maintain his or her status. Thus, pursuant to a policy that has been in place for decades, the change of status application of an alien who travels outside of the United States during the pendency of his or her request for a change of status is deemed abandoned.
DHS is proposing the following updates to regulations pertaining to employment authorization:
First, DHS proposes to strike the reference to D/S and update the reference to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vi) in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(6)(v).
Second, in proposed 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(10), DHS proposes to cross-reference language in proposed 8 CFR 214.2(i) for I nonimmigrants, which clarifies that limitations currently in the provision (stating that an alien in this status may be employed only for the sponsoring foreign news agency or bureau) allow for freelance and self-employment situations where the I nonimmigrant may not have a “sponsoring” foreign news agency or bureau, and instead would need to show, among other requirements indicated in proposed 8 CFR 214.2(i), that they are working for a qualifying foreign media organization.
DHS developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. The below sections summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”
This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” that is economically significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in INA § 101(a)(17), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) or any other function performed by the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens.
DHS provides a summary of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the economic impacts below. For the full analysis, please see the RIA posted in the docket of this proposed rule on
Under the proposed changes, DHS would more frequently have opportunities to review and collect nonimmigrant information, enhancing the Government's oversight and monitoring of these aliens, resulting in costs and benefits. Over a 10-year period of analysis, DHS estimates the proposed rule would have annualized costs ranging from $390.3 million to $392.4 million (using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively) when considering both U.S. and non-U.S. parties. When considering U.S. parties only, DHS estimates that annualized costs would range from $86.3 million to $88.1 million (using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively).
The proposed rule would ensure an effective mechanism for DHS to periodically and directly assess whether these nonimmigrants are complying with the conditions of their classifications and U.S. immigration laws, as well as allow DHS to obtain
The proposed rule would impact F, J, and I nonimmigrants, DSOs and ROs from SEVP-certified schools and exchange visitor sponsors that run a SEVP- or DOS-designated program and foreign media representatives. Overall, approximately 2.1 million persons participated annually in the F, J, and I nonimmigrant programs combined.
The number of nonimmigrant EOS requests under the proposed rule depends on the unique circumstances of each nonimmigrant visa holder. For example, in situations when the nonimmigrant intends to extend their stay in the United States in furtherance of their academic training and following the proposed regulatory criteria for their visa and program, they would be expected to file an EOS. Therefore, DHS estimates the number of EOS requests over the 10-year analysis period based on the historical nonimmigrant data and criteria from the proposed regulatory provisions. Further, DHS accounts for the proposed transition period in the estimated number of EOS requests. Based on the historical data, regulatory criteria, and the transition period assumptions, DHS estimates an annual average of 205,000; 203,000; 6,000 EOS requests for F, J, and I nonimmigrants, respectively, over the ten-year period of analysis.
DHS recognizes that the proposed rule would incur costs. Some of the costs have been quantified based on available data, and the remaining costs are qualitative. DHS welcomes comments on these costs, including data or information that could support quantification as well as proposed alternatives to reduce burdens and impacts.
Depending on each nonimmigrant's need to extend his or her stay in the United States, nonimmigrants on an F1, F2, J1, J2 and I visa would incur costs to request an EOS. The cost burden includes application fees and time for filing Form I-539 or I-539A. DHS assumes a percentage of nonimmigrants would incur costs for additional help filing their request for EOS. DHS estimates the annualized EOS costs for the nonimmigrants would range from $304.0 million to $304.3 million (using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively).
Further, DSOs and ROs would incur a burden for processing additional EOS requests resulting from this proposed rule. When a nonimmigrant is or would be employed under OPT or CPT, DHS assumes HR staff would incur burden per EOS request to track form updates and avoid inadvertent unauthorized employment due to form discrepancies with the Form I-9. DHS estimates the annualized EOS costs for the DSOs and ROs, and HR staff would range from $76.1 million to $76.2 million (using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively).
Additionally, DHS assumes DSOs and ROs would incur costs to familiarize themselves with the rule and to create and modify training materials, and other adaptations such as system wide briefings and systemic changes. DHS estimates the annualized familiarization and adaptation costs to DSOs and ROs would range from $10.1 million to $11.8 million (using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively).
DHS acknowledges there could be other costs that the Department was not able to quantify and discusses these in the following section. Generally, DHS lacked data and information to quantify the qualitative costs below. DHS welcomes comments on these costs, including data or information that could support quantification as well as proposed alternatives to reduce burdens and impacts.
DHS acknowledges there would be implementation and operational costs to the U.S. Government associated with assessing aliens at POEs for purposes of authorizing an admission period of 4 years. CBP officers would need training on new systems and procedures for conducting inspections at POEs. DHS continues to explore the necessary upgrades to systems and procedures that would allow CBP officers to perform their duties in accordance with this proposed rule. There may be additional costs to DHS associated with potential requests for additional information, in-person interviews, or biometric appointments.
The global market for nonimmigrant students is competitive and many U.S. schools hold an advantage over foreign institutions due to the quality of the programs they offer, however the proposed rule may have a marginal impact on nonimmigrant student enrollment. The proposed rule affects only those F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants who need additional time to complete their program; however, DHS maintains that eligible students should have no difficulty with getting their EOS requests approved, which should alleviate concerns about the uncertainty of EOS approval. Schools may also incur costs for changes to their information systems and practices to implement processing under the proposed rule.
DHS expects this proposed rule would affect relatively few English language programs; the majority of English language training students were enrolled in programs shorter than 2 years. Some schools may choose to change their curriculum to be covered in a 2-year time period. It is possible
DHS expects that the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on participation of other J exchange visitors or I foreign information media representatives. Equivalent U.S.-based exchange visitor programs (outside of academia) may be more difficult to find in other countries, providing less of an incentive for nonimmigrants to choose an alternative.
DHS expects this proposed rule to have qualitative benefits for national security by providing DHS additional opportunities to evaluate whether F, J, and I nonimmigrants are complying with their status requirements, or if they present a national security concern. It would deter fraud and abuse of the F, J, and I visa classifications, as requiring EOS requests at frequent intervals allow DHS to review the standing of the nonimmigrant. DHS would be able to enforce the unlawful presence provisions of the INA for those who are not complying with the terms of their visa status.
DHS has prepared a full analysis according to E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563, which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking or by searching for RIN 1653-AA95 on
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” is comprised of small business, 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. DHS requests information and data from the public that would assist in better understanding the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. DHS also seeks input from the public on alternatives that will accomplish the same objectives and minimize the proposed rule's economic impact on small entities. DHS has prepared a full initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking or by searching for RIN 1653-AA95 on www.regulations.gov. A summary of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) follows.
DHS performed an IRFA of the impacts on small entities from this proposed rule in the first year of the analysis and found that it may affect an estimated 6,665 U.S. entities (5,494 SEVP-certified institutions (schools), and 1,171 J exchange visitor program sponsors). DHS analyzed all the entities that would be affected by the proposed rule and DHS found that 78 percent of SEVP-certified institutions and 60 percent of J exchange visitor program sponsors would be considered small entities.
Under the proposed rule, DSOs and ROs will have to spend approximately 67 hours for rule familiarization and adaptation in the first year after the rule takes effect. For each DSO, rule familiarization would cost $3,342 in the first year after the rule takes effect. Further, each year DSOs/ROs will spend approximately 3 hours per F-1/J-1 EOS request to review the Form I-539 completed by the F-1/J-1 nonimmigrant, update the SEVIS record and track EOS requests, and advise the F-1/J-1 nonimmigrant about the extension process and the requirements to file an EOS with USCIS. Additionally, HR staff will spend approximately 1.5 hours per F-1 EOS request to track form updates related to each EOS request and avoid inadvertent unauthorized employment due to form discrepancies with the I-9. The DSO cost per EOS request is $233.
DHS estimates that 93.4% of small schools will experience an impact less than or equal to one percent of their annual revenue. DHS estimates that the majority of small J sponsors would experience an impact less than or equal to one percent of their annual revenue. DHS invites all interested parties to submit data and information regarding the potential economic impact on small entities that would result from the adoption of the requirements in the proposed rule.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult ICE using the contact information
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 year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, DHS does discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (PRA), all Departments are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a rule. DHS, USCIS and ICE are revising one information collection and proposing non-substantive edits to one information collection in association with this rulemaking action:
DHS and ICE invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1653-0038 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
DHS, USCIS and ICE invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0003 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-12, DHS must submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule unless they are exempt. Although this rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the PRA for this information collection, this rule will require non-substantive edits to USCIS Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. Accordingly, USCIS has submitted a Paperwork Reduction Act Change Worksheet, Form OMB 83-C, and amended information collection instruments to OMB for review and approval in accordance with the PRA.
This proposed rule 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. DHS does not expect that this proposed rule would impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132,
This proposed rule meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988,
DHS has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
DHS and its components analyze final actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. 4321
NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS).
Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
DHS has analyzed this proposed rule under MD 023-01 Rev. 01 and IM 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01. DHS has determined that this proposed rulemaking action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule completely fits within the Categorical Exclusion found in IM 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1, number A3(d): “Promulgation of rules. that interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its environmental effect.” This proposed rule is not part of a larger action. This proposed rule presents no extraordinary circumstances creating the potential for significant environmental effects. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
DHS seeks any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of any significant environmental effects from this proposed rule.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175,
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Executive Order 13045,
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
DHS has determined that this proposed action will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange program, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students.
Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange program, Employment, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students.
Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend parts 214, 248, and 274a of chapter I, subchapter B, of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305, 1357, and 1372; section 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note, and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 115-218, 131 Stat. 1547 (48 U.S.C. 1806).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4)
(i)
(A) Aliens seeking admission to the United States, including those seeking admission with a properly filed pending application for an extension of stay, as an F nonimmigrant after a previously authorized period of admission as an F nonimmigrant expired, may be admitted for a maximum period of 4 years or the length of program as specified on Form I-20, whichever is shorter, plus additional 30 day periods for arrival and departure as provided in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i);
(B) Aliens seeking admission to the United States as an F nonimmigrant with a properly filed pending application for extension of stay as an F nonimmigrant may, if they have time remaining on the period of stay authorized prior to departure, be admitted for a period up to the unexpired period of stay authorized prior to the alien's departure, plus an additional 30 days as provided in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v), subject to the requirements in paragraph (c)(8) of this section, or if the alien seeks admission with a Form I-20 for a program end date beyond their previously authorized period of admission, the alien may be admitted for the period specified in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5), subject to the requirements in paragraph (c)(8) of this section;
(C) Aliens seeking admission to the United States as an F nonimmigrant with an approved extension of stay for F nonimmigrant status may be admitted until the expiration of the approved extension of stay, plus an additional 30 days, as provided in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(v);
(ii)
(A) Aliens seeking admission to the United States, including those seeking admission with a properly filed,
(B) Aliens seeking admission to the United States as a J nonimmigrant with a properly filed pending extension of stay as a J nonimmigrant may, if they have time remaining on the period of stay authorized prior to departure, be admitted for a period up to the unexpired period of stay authorized prior to the alien's departure, plus an additional 30 days as provided in 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii)(C), subject to the requirements in paragraph (c)(8) of this section, provided that if the alien seeks admission with a Form DS-2019 for a program end date beyond his or her previously authorized period of admission, the alien may be admitted for the period specified in 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1), subject to the requirements in paragraph (c)(8) of this section;
(C) Aliens seeking admission to the United States as a J nonimmigrant with an approved extension of stay in J nonimmigrant status may be admitted up to the expiration of the approved extension of stay, plus an additional 30 days as provided in 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii)(C).
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c) * * *
(2)
(3) * * *
(v) Any nonimmigrant admitted for duration of status.
(5)
(8)
(ii) An application for extension of stay in F, I, or J nonimmigrant status may be deemed abandoned if an alien departs the United States and seeks admission with a Form I-20 or DS-2019 for a program end date beyond their previously authorized period of admission while the application for an extension of stay is pending. USCIS will not consider as abandoned any corresponding applications for employment authorization.
(iii) When an alien described in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) or (ii) of this section departs, the alien should travel with a copy of their Form I-797C, Notice of Action, or successor form, which confirms the receipt of either their Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, or Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, along with proposed length of stay as evidenced by the Form I-20, DS-2019, or letter of employment for a foreign media organization.
(m)
(1)
(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (m)(1) of this section, an F-1 student recommended for post-completion OPT who files before his or her period of admission expires, including the 60 day departure period, an Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form on the form and in the manner designated by USCIS, with the required fee, as described in the form's instructions, on or before [DHS WILL INSERT DATE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], is not required to file an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, or successor form for the requested period of post-completion OPT. An F-1 student recommended for STEM OPT who files, prior to his or her current OPT Employment Authorization Document, Form I-766, or successor form expires, an Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form on or before [DHS WILL INSERT DATE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], is not required to file an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, or successor form for the requested period of STEM OPT. If the alien's application for post-completion OPT or STEM-OPT employment authorization is approved, the alien will be authorized to remain in the United States in F status until the expiration date of the employment authorization document, plus 60 days. If the employment authorization application is denied, the F-1 student would continue to be authorized to remain in the United States until the program end date listed on their Form I-20, valid on [DHS WILL INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE] plus 60 days, as long as he or she continues to pursue a full course of study and otherwise meets the requirements for F-1 status, or until the end date of the employment authorization document for post-completion OPT, as long as he or she continues to meet the requirements for F-1 status, plus 60 days.
(ii) An F-1 student described in this paragraph who departs the United States before filing the application for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT, and is admitted to the United States with a fixed period of admission is required to file both an Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form and an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, or successor form pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(11)(i)(B)(2) or (C). An alien described in this section who departs the United States while the Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form is pending or once approved will be admitted pursuant to 8 CFR 214.1(a). DHS reserves the discretion to extend the period exempting the filing of the Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, or successor form beyond [DHS WILL INSERT DATE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], in 6 month increments through announcement in the
(2)
(i) If the F-1 student's application for post-completion OPT or STEM-OPT employment authorization is approved, the F-1 student will be authorized to remain in the United States in F status until the expiration date of the employment authorization document, plus 60-days. If the employment authorization application is denied, the F-1 student would continue to be authorized to remain in the United States until the program end date listed on their Form I-20, plus 60 days, as long as he or she continues to pursue a full course of study and otherwise meets the requirements for F-1 status.
(ii) F-1 students with pending employment authorization applications, other than post-completion OPT and STEM-OPT, who continue to pursue a full course of study and otherwise meet the requirements for F-1 status, continue to be authorized to remain in the United States until the program end date listed on the Form I-20, plus 60 days, regardless of whether the employment authorization application is approved or denied.
(3)
(4)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(f) * * *
(5)
(A) F-1 students whose course of study is in an English language training program are restricted to a maximum of 24 months admission period, plus an additional 30-day period of stay for the purposes of departure or to otherwise seek to maintain lawful status.
(B) Border commuter students under the provisions in paragraph (f)(18) of this section may be admitted for the applicable period described under that paragraph.
(C) F-1 students attending a public high school are restricted to an aggregate of no more than 12 months to complete their course of study, including any school breaks and annual vacations.
(D) Students with pending employment authorization applications who are admitted based on the designated school official's recommended employment end date for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT specified on their Form I-20, with a notice issued by USCIS indicating receipt of the Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT, who cease employment pursuant to an employment authorization document (EAD) that expires before the alien's fixed date of admission as noted on their Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94, or successor form, will be considered to be in the United States in a period of authorized stay from the date of the expiration noted on their EAD until the fixed date of admission as noted on their Form I-94.
(E) The authorized period of stay for F-2 dependents may not exceed the authorized period of stay of the principal F-1 student.
(ii)
(A) An F-1 student at any level below the graduate degree level may not change programs or educational objectives,
(B) An F-1 student who has completed a program in the United States at one educational level and begins a new program at a higher educational level is considered to be maintaining F-1 status if otherwise complying with requirements under 8 CFR 214.2(f).
(C) An alien who has completed a program in the United States as an F-1 nonimmigrant at one educational level may not maintain, be admitted, or otherwise be provided F-1 status through a program at the same educational level or a lower educational level.
(D) When seeking a change in educational objectives, F-1 students referenced in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section must, if seeking an extension of stay, apply for an extension of stay on the form designated by USCIS, with the required fee and in accordance with the form instructions, including any biometrics required by 8 CFR 103.16.
(E) DHS may delay or suspend the implementation of paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section, in its discretion, if it determines that implementation is infeasible for any reason. If DHS delays or suspends any provisions in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) governing the change in educational objectives, DHS will make an announcement of the delay or suspension on SEVP's website at
(iii)
(v)
(viii)
(7)
(i)
(A) Has continually maintained lawful status;
(B) Is currently pursuing a full course of study; and
(C) Has one of the following:
(
(
(ii)
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(8)
(i)
(A) The student is currently maintaining status;
(B) To be eligible to transfer, the student must:
(
(
(
(C) The student is not currently in a graduate level program of study;
(D) Unless an exception has been authorized by SEVP, the student has completed his or her academic year of a program of study at the school that initially issued his or her Form I-20 or successor form;
(E) The student has not been placed on academic probation or school suspension;
(F) The student does not have a pattern of behavior demonstrating a repeated inability or unwillingness to complete his or her course of study;
(G) The student will begin classes at the transfer school or program within 5 months of transferring out of the current school or within 5 months of the program completion date on his or her current Form I-20, or successor form, whichever is earlier; and
(H) If the F-1 student is authorized to engage in post-completion or STEM OPT, he or she must be able to resume classes within 5 months of transferring out of the school that recommended the post-completion or STEM OPT or the date the post-completion or STEM OPT authorization ends, whichever is earlier.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(10) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D)
(20)
(i)
(2)
(i) Demonstrate that the foreign media organization that the alien represents has a home office in a foreign country, and that the home office will continue to operate in the foreign country while the alien is in the United States; and
(ii) Provide a letter from the employing foreign media organization or, if self-employed or freelancing, an attestation from the alien, that verifies the employment, establishes that the alien is a representative of that media organization, and describes the remuneration and work to be performed.
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(4)
(5)
(A) Aliens in I nonimmigrant status may be eligible for extensions of stay, each of up to 240 days or until the activities or assignments consistent with the I classification are completed, whichever is shorter (except for aliens who present a passport from the People's Republic of China, with the exception of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport holders and Macau Special Administrative Region passport holders, who may be eligible for extensions of stay, each up to 90 days or until the activities or assignments consistent with the I classification are completed, whichever is shorter).
(B) To request an extension of stay, aliens in I nonimmigrant status must file an application to extend their stay by submitting the form designated by USCIS, in accordance with that form's instructions, and with the required fee, including any biometrics required by 8 CFR 103.16, and provide all the evidence required in paragraph (2) of this section, as appropriate. An alien whose I nonimmigrant status, as indicated on the alien's Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, has expired but who has timely filed an extension of stay application is authorized to continue engaging in activities consistent with the I classification on the day after the Form I-94 expired, for a period of up to 240 days, as provided in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20). Such authorization shall be subject to any conditions and limitations of the initial authorization.
(C) If an extension of stay application remains pending at the end of this 240-day period, the I nonimmigrant alien, whose status has expired, may remain in the United States so long as the extension of stay application is pending, he or she has timely filed a subsequent extension of stay request to remain beyond the period requested in the preceding request, and he or she does not otherwise violate the terms of his or her authorized period of stay. The alien, however, must cease working until his or her initial extension of stay application is approved. USCIS will deny the extension of stay application if the alien did not cease working after the 240-day period and before the extension of stay request was approved.
(ii)
(iii)
(A) In the case of an alien who presents a passport issued by the People's Republic of China (other than a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport or a Macau Special Administrative Region passport), an extension of stay may be authorized until the activities or assignments consistent with the I classification are completed, not to exceed the maximum period of stay of 90 days. To request an extension of stay, these aliens must file an application to extend their stay by submitting the form designated by USCIS, in accordance with that form's instructions, and with the required fee, including any biometrics required by 8 CFR 103.16, as appropriate. Notwithstanding paragraph (i)(5)(i) of this section and 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), an alien in I nonimmigrant status who is described in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this section whose status, as indicated on the alien's Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, has expired but who has timely filed an extension of stay application is authorized to continue engaging in activities consistent with the I classification and continue employment with the same employer on the day after the status indicated on the Form I-94 expired, for a period of up to 90 days. Such authorization shall be subject to any conditions and limitations of the initial authorization.
(B) If an extension of stay application remains pending at the end of this 90-day period, the I nonimmigrant alien, whose status has expired, may remain in the United States so long as the extension of stay application is pending, he or she has timely filed a subsequent extension of stay request to remain beyond the period requested in the preceding request, and he or she does not otherwise violate the terms of his or her authorized period of stay. The alien, however, must cease working until his or her initial extension of stay application is approved. USCIS may deny the extension of stay application if the alien did not cease working after the 90-day period and before the extension of stay request was approved.
(iv)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(j)
(1) * * *
(ii)
(B)
(C)
(iv)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(A) An alien whose J-1 status, as indicated on the alien's Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, has expired but who has timely filed an extension of stay application is authorized to continue engaging in activities consistent with pursuing the terms and conditions of the alien's program objectives and including authorized training, beginning on the day after the admission period expires, for a period of up to 240 days as provided in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20). An alien whose J-1 status, as indicated on the alien's Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, has expired but who has timely filed an extension of stay application on or before [DHS WILL INSERT DATE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], is authorized to continue engaging in activities consistent with pursuing the terms and conditions of the alien's program objectives, including authorized training and activities pursuant to a new or transferred program, while the extension of stay application is pending with USCIS, not to exceed the program end date on the Form DS-2019 (or successor form) filed with the pending application. Such authorization may be subject to any conditions and limitations of the initial authorization. If the extension of stay application remains pending beyond the Form DS-2019 (or successor form) end date filed with the application, the alien, whose status has expired, may remain in the United States and continue engaging in activities consistent with pursuing the terms and conditions of the alien's program objectives and including authorized training so long as the extension of stay application is pending and he or she has filed a subsequent extension of stay request with a Form DS-2019 (or successor form) indicating an end date beyond the Form DS-2019 (or successor form) end date requested in the preceding extension of stay request. DHS reserves the discretion to extend the period permitting an alien in J-1 status to continue engaging in activities consistent with pursuing the terms and conditions of the alien's program objectives and including authorized training, up to the end date of the Form DS-2019 (or successor form) so long as the extension of stay application is pending, beyond [DHS WILL INSERT DATE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], in 6 month increments through announcement in the
(B) The facially expired Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94, or successor form of an alien described in (j)(1)(vii)(A) is considered unexpired when combined with a USCIS receipt notice indicating receipt of a timely filed extension of stay application and a valid Form DS-2019, or successor form, indicating the duration of the program. An application is considered timely filed if the receipt notice for the application is on or before the date the admission period expires. Such extension may not exceed the earlier of 240 days, as provided in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), or for those extension of stay applications filed on or before [DHS WILL INSERT DATE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], the end date of the Form DS-2019 (or successor form) filed with the application, or the date of denial of the alien's application for an extension of stay.
(C) An alien in J-2 status whose admission period has expired (as indicated on his or her Form I-94) may not engage in employment until USCIS approves his or her application for employment authorization.
(viii)
(ix)
(6)
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1184, 1258; 8 CFR part 2.
The additions read as follows:
(e)
(f)
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1105, 1324a; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599; Title VII of Pub. L. 110-229, 122 Stat. 754; Pub. L. 115-218, 132 Stat. 1547; 8 CFR part 2.
(b) * * *
(10) An alien who is a foreign information media representative in I status under 8 CFR 214.2(i) may be employed pursuant to the requirements of 8 CFR 214.2(i). Employment authorization does not extend to the dependents of a foreign information media representative.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Is seeking employment because of severe economic hardship pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(C) and has an Employment Authorization Document, Form I-766 or successor form, based on severe economic hardship pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(C), and whose timely filed application for employment authorization and application for extension of stay, both filed on applicable forms and in the manner designated by USCIS, with the required fees, as described in the form's instructions, are pending, is authorized to engage in employment beginning on the expiration date of the Employment Authorization Document issued under paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of this section and ending on the date of USCIS' written decision on the current Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, or successor form, but not to exceed 240 days. For this same period, such Employment Authorization Document, Form I-766 or successor form, is automatically extended and is considered unexpired when combined with a Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1/M-1) Students, Form I-20 or successor form, endorsed by the Designated School Official recommending such an extension.
(b) The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia shall, subject to the availability of appropriations and applicable law, hire additional prosecutors to focus on prosecuting violent and property crimes.
(c) The D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force established in Executive Order 14252 of March 27, 2025 (Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful), shall establish an online portal for Americans with law enforcement or other relevant backgrounds and experience to apply to join Federal law enforcement entities to support the policy goals described in Executive Order 14333. Each law enforcement agency that is a member of the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, as well as other relevant components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General determines, shall further, subject to the availability of appropriations and applicable law, immediately create and begin training, manning, hiring, and equipping a specialized unit that is dedicated to ensuring public safety and order in the Nation's capital that can be deployed whenever the circumstances necessitate, and that could be deployed, subject to applicable law, in other cities where public safety and order has been lost.
(d)(i) The Secretary of Defense shall, subject to the availability of appropriations and applicable law, immediately create and begin training, manning, hiring, and equipping a specialized unit within the District of Columbia National Guard, subject to activation under Title 32 of the United States Code, that is dedicated to ensuring public safety and order in the Nation's capital. As appropriate and consistent with applicable law, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall each deputize the members of this unit to enforce Federal law.
(e) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shall investigate any non-compliance with the crime-prevention and safety requirements of HUD agreements by the District of Columbia Housing Authority or any landlord in the District of Columbia. These investigations shall include consideration of the provisions of such agreements that require housing providers to maintain safe, decent, and sanitary conditions or to restrict tenants who engage in criminal activity that threatens health, safety, and the right to peaceful enjoyment for other tenants, including engaging in drug distribution, violent criminal activity, and domestic violence. The Secretary of HUD shall refer any findings of non-compliance to the Attorney General, Federal law enforcement authorities, the District of Columbia Housing Authority Police Department, and the Metropolitan Police Department, as appropriate.
(f) The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct additional inspections, audits, and examinations to determine whether conditions exist in federally-funded transit services in the District of Columbia that endanger transit workers, and take appropriate remedial action that is within the Department of Transportation's authority.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Justice.
(b) Further, the Attorney General shall review the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) General Orders and other policies and practices of the MPD to identify those that may result in pretrial release of criminal defendants who pose a threat to public safety and, consistent with section 740 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (Public Law 93-198), shall request that the Mayor of the District of Columbia make such updates and modifications to such orders and policies as the Attorney General determines would be necessary to address the crime emergency and help to ensure public order and safety.
(b) If the Attorney General determines that the District of Columbia continues to maintain a policy or practice of prohibiting cash bail, the head of each executive department or agency (agency), in coordination with the
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Justice.
(b) In cases where the Department of Justice or another executive department or agency (agency) determines that an instance of American Flag desecration may violate an applicable State or local law, such as open burning restrictions, disorderly conduct laws, or destruction of property laws, the agency shall refer the matter to the appropriate State or local authority for potential action.
(c) To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag, and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions in this area.
(d) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting within their respective authorities, shall deny, prohibit, terminate, or revoke visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits, or seek removal from the United States, pursuant to Federal law, including 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), 8 U.S.C. 1424,
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Justice.
(b) The head of each executive department and agency, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall identify Federal funds, including grants and contracts, currently provided to cashless bail jurisdictions identified pursuant to subsection (a) of this section that may be suspended or terminated, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Justice.